Allowed

Sunilkumar T.A. v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India

Kerala HC8 Dec 2017RP/1084/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in a review petition allowed modification of the prior judgment dated 09.11.2017 to conditionally restore possession of the secured asset to the petitioner upon payment of outstanding dues. The order stipulates that failure to pay or further default results in immediate surrender of possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to handover possession if default occurs; Respondents to handover possession if petitioner pays overdue amount before the stipulated deadline.

Sunilkumar T.A. Vs the Branch Manager, Union Bank of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 1084 of 2017 (L)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35915/2017 DATED 09-11-2017 -------------

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS :

¶8

1. SUNILKUMAR T.A., S/O. ARAVINDAN, AGED 45 YEARS, THANDENGATTIL, AZHAKOM P.O., NJALUKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683577.

¶9

2. JISHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SUNILKUMAR T.A., THANDENGATTIL, AZHAKOM P.O., NJALUKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683577.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.NANDANAN

¶11

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) SRI.P.N.ANOOP

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KARUKUTTY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM.627985

¶14

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

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

R.P. No.1084 of 2017 (L) in W.P.(C). No. 35915 of 2017

¶19

===================================================== Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner seeks a review of the judgment dated 09.11.2017, for the purposes of incorporating a condition therein that, on the petitioner paying the overdue amount, either within the time granted in this judgment or earlier, the respondents will handover possession of the secured asset to the petitioner.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶23

Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the secured asset had already been taken by the respondent bank prior to the date of judgment, I make it clear that, if the petitioner pays the overdue amount either within the time granted in the judgment or earlier, then the respondents shall handover possession of the secured asset to the petitioner. This, however, shall be subject to the condition that, on any further

¶24

-2-

¶25

R.P. No.1084 of 2017 (L) in W.P.(C). No. 35915 of 2017

¶26

default being committed, the petitioner shall handover physical possession of the secured asset back to the respondents, without awaiting any order from this Court or direction from the respondent bank. The review petition is allowed by modifying the judgment to the above extent.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶29

das/ 8.12.2017

Sunilkumar T.A. v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar T.A. v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Rathnamma Gopalan Vs Tahasildar, Manjeshwaram

Jithesh K S Vs Chottanikkara Grama Panchayath

Alippu Haji Vs District Collector

P.T. Mohanan Vs District Collector

Achuthan Nair Vs the Secretary