Allowed

Mohamed Rafi v. the Authorised Officer,Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016WP(C)/6202/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging bank recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act by granting the petitioner permission to clear the overdue amount in equal monthly installments, keeping proceedings in abeyance subject to compliance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings kept in abeyance if petitioner pays Rs. 4,68,699 plus accrued interest in ten equal monthly installments starting 21.03.2016. Respondent bank directed to provide updated account statement

Mohamed Rafi Vs the Authorised… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6202 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMED RAFI, S/O. SULTHAN, 60 YEARS, PALAYAMKOTTU HOUSE, PUTHURACKAL DESOM, CHOVVOOR, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HO SAHAKARANA SATHABPTHI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, KOVOLAKATHUMKANDOM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O, PIN - 680 001.

¶11

BY SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 6202 of 2016 (A)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶17

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF SEC.13(4) POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 8/2/16.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶23

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.6202 of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2016

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

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.P1 is the possession notice. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank.

¶27

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole

¶28

-2-

¶29

W.P.(C). No.6202 of 2016

¶30

prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the bank in easy instalments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶31

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner, as on today is stated to be Rs.4,68,699/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs.4,68,699/together with accrued interest in ten equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 21.03.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule, then the further proceedings initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶32

(ii) It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the instalments, 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.

¶33

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P.(C). No.6202 of 2016

¶36

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 in this judgment.

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/3.3.16

Mohamed Rafi v. the Authorised Officer,Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Rafi v. the Authorised Officer,Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

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

Valliyammakutty Vs Gayathri Nathan

Dr. J. Harikrishna Pillai Vs Dr. a. Nalinakshan

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs M/S Orma Granite Centre

Jeevan Das Vs the Authorized Officer

N.C. Gardens & Beach Resort Vs Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal

Mararikulam Service Co-Op Bank Limited Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax