Partly allowed

Mahesh v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WP(C)/2490/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenet petitioner aggrieved by bank recovery under SARFAESI Act sought discharge of borrower liability. Court granted temporary stay on recovery if petitioner pays Rs.5 lakh immediately and balance in five monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed if petitioner pays Rs.5 lakh by 29.02.2016 and balance dues in five equal monthly installments commencing 20.03.2016.

Mahesh Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2490 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAHESH, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.CHELLATHURA, HOUSE NO.7/60 D1, LAKSHMIPURAM PARUTHIVILA K K DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629252

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. PIN - 682 011.

¶11

2. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.SIVAN MENON "REVATHY" VAILASSERY ROAD, NORTH JANATHA PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. PIN - 682 025.

¶12

BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS (SC)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 2490 of 2016 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 5.11.2013 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶18

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.14.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE

¶19

ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶20

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD 14.9.2012 IN PLP NO.125/2012

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No.2490 of 2016

¶28

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of February 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, who is a tenant in a building, that was offered as security for the availment of loan by the 2^nd respondent, is aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent bank, for recovery of the defaulted loan amounts, under the 'SARFAESI' Act. It would appear that the 2^nd respondent borrower had entered into a settlement with the respondent bank in the Lok Adalath, but failed to comply with the directions in Ext.P3 award, for the purposes of obtaining the benefit of the settlement. The petitioner herein is a tenant in the building and it is submitted that it is his interest to discharge the liability of the 2^nd respondent, because, he is using the building in connection with his business activity.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Tom K.Thomas, the learned standing counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made across the Bar, I find that the total

¶33

W.P.(c).No.2490 of 2016

¶34

: 2 :

¶35

outstanding amount from the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent bank is, Rs,18,37,963/-. Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to discharge the liability of the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent bank, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶36

(i) If the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 29.02.2016, and pays the balance amount of Rs.13,37,963/- together with accrued interest in five equal and successive monthly instalments, commencing from 20.03.2016, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶37

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against him from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶38

(iii)The respondent bank shall furnish the petitioner with an up-to-date statement of the dues position, within 10 days from today, so as to enable the petitioner to effect repayment as per the directions in this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

sm/

Mahesh v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedhu Krishnan Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Antony Jishan Vs the Authorized Officer

Mary Xavier Vs the Secretary to Government

Ashok Kumar Vs the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India

Sanoj V.E Vs Syndicate Bank

M.K.Soman Vs the Authorised Officer