Disposed

Nisa Nasar v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC5 Apr 2016WP(C)/9432/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court allowed the petitioner to remit a specified overdue amount in six monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance conditionally, if regular payments continue.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance if petitioner pays Rs.1,50,000 plus interest in six equal monthly installments commencing 20.04.2016 and maintains regular payments; otherwise, bank resumes proce

Nisa Nasar Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9432 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NISA NASSAR, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. NASAR P., LULU HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVUM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 690 502.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN,

¶9

SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA -690 502.

¶12

2. THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA-690 502.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 9432 of 2016 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 09.02.2016.

¶20

P2THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON 16.02.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶26

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.9432 of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner, who had availed of two housing 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 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

¶30

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

¶31

-2-

¶32

W.P.(C). No.9432 of 2016

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the housing loans availed by the petitioner as on today is stated to be Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- together with accrued interest in six equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 20.04.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedules in both the loan accounts, then the further proceedings for recovery shall be kept in abeyance.

¶35

(ii) It is further 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.

¶36

-3-

¶37

W.P.(C). No.9432 of 2016

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

mns/5.4.16

Nisa Nasar v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisa Nasar v. 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

Omana Vs Union Bank of India

Navab Wajid Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Swaraj K.K. Vs Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

State Bank of Travancore Vs Chandran Nair P

Rajeev Babu C Vs Federal Bank

Biju.S Vs Deputy Thasildar (R.R)