Disposed

Madhuri v. Authorized Officer

Kerala HC22 Feb 2016WP(C)/2691/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, defaulting on bank loans, sought suspension of SARFAESI Act proceedings. Court granted temporary abeyance of recovery steps contingent upon the petitioner remitting the outstanding balance in three monthly installments while adhering to the original loan schedule. Defaulting on installments would void the relief.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings against the petitioner were kept in abeyance provided she remits the overdue amount in three equal monthly installments commencing from 03.03.2016 and continues regular loan payme

Madhuri Vs Authorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2691 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MADHURI AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRIKA 'UDAYAM', MUNDAYIL, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER CORPORATION BANK, VARKALA (NRI BRANCH) STATION ROAD - OPP: RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141.

¶11

2. MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, VARKALA (NRI BRANCH), STATION ROAD - OPP: RAILWAY STATION, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 2691 of 2016 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2015 UNDER SEC.13(2)OF THE SARFAESI ACT.

¶20

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 21.12.2015.

¶21

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF E-AUCTION OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 23.12.2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 2691 of 2016

¶28

===================================================== Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, who had availed of three loans from the respondent bank, defaulted in repayment of the same. Consequently, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act', to recover the loan amounts. Ext.P2 is the e-auction notice issued to the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer of the petitioner is to permit her to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the bank in easy installments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 2691 of 2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶36

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loans as on today, is stated to be Rs.2,76,891/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,76,891/- in three equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 03.03.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installments as per the original loan schedule in the three loan accounts, then the recovery steps initiated against her 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, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against her from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶38

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days from today, provide the petitioner with an upto-date statement of accounts so as to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in accordance with the directions of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

das /22.02.2016

Madhuri v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhuri v. Authorized 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

Vishnu Priya Vs the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,Mynagappally

Lenid Foot Care Private Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs Bank of Baroda, Rep by Its Chief Manager

Rajan Mathew Vs the Intelligence Inspector

M/S. Kasmisons Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division

Rojer P. Mathew Vs the Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank Limited

Kamalasanan Pillai Vs the Authorized Officer