Dismissed

M/S. Silk Souk v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2017RP/966/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed by bankers challenging a previous judgment regarding recovery proceedings and a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal. The court rejected the ground that the Branch impeded the OTS, noting lack of bona fides in the offer without a concrete proposal. It granted liberty regarding future payments.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of. Liberty given to Petitioners to pay defaulted instalments by 30.11.2017 to resume payments under the original judgment order.

M/S. Silk Souk Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/23RD KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 966 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3265/2017 DATED 17-02-2017

¶7

------------

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

1. M/S. SILK SOUK, A PARTNERSHIP, DOOR NO.18/79E, GROJND FLOOR, K V COMPLEX, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT PIN-673002.

¶10

2. KALLINGAL ANSARA ALI, 34/17.S/O HAMSA KOYA, MG.PARTNER, M/S SILK SOUK, 4157C, 2 'KALLINGAL' H ERANGOTH PARAMBA, MEENACHANTHA PO, CALICUT PIN-673018.

¶11

3. HASSANKUTTY @ HASSAN, 60/17 S/O KUTTIALI @ BAVA, PARTNER M/S SILK SOUK, PACHATH HOUSE, ANAKAMPAD, PO.VIA EDAPPAL, KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM. PIN-679576.

¶12

4. KALLINGAL HAMSA KOYA 61/17, S/O ALIKOYA, PARTNER, M/S SILK SOUK, 4157C, 'KALLINGAL' H ERANGOTH PARAMBA, MEENANCHANATHA PO, CALICUT PIN-673018.

¶13

5. ABDUL RASHEED S V, 48/17, S/O S V MOIDEEN KOYA, ROSHNI HOUSE, F/19/MELERI PADAM, THIRUVANNUR ROAD, PANNIANKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673003.

¶14

6. ROSHINI T V, 38/17, W/O ABDUL RASHEED S V., ROSHNI HOUSE, F/19 MELERI PADAM, THRIUVANNUR ROAD, PANNIANKARA, KOZHIKODE.PIN-673003. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

¶15

RP.No. 966 of 2017 ()

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, FINANCE MINISTRY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶18

2. BANK OF BARODA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MAIN BRANCH, HOLYDAY CITY CENTER, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 001.

¶19

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANNIYANKARA VILLAGE, PANNIYANKARA KOZHIKODE PIN 673 029.

¶20

R1,R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT VINEETHA HARIRAJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.V.

¶23

RP.No. 966 of 2017 ()

¶24

¶25

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶26

A1; CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/2/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 3265/2017.

¶27

A2; TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/9/2017 BY PETITIONERS TO THE R2 BANK WITH POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACK CARD.

¶28

A3; THE TRUE COPY OF R2 BANK'S REPLY DATED 19/10/2017 TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶29

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

¶30

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶31

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

Review Petition No.966 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 3265 of 2017

¶33

-----------------------------------------Dated: 14^th November, 2017

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioner seeks a review on the ground that

¶36

there is a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS), as submitted by the Regional Office of the Bank, produced at Annexure 3. It is also submitted that the Branch is standing in the way of a OTS proposal.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that there is absolutely no ground for review of the judgment and that the petitioner has defaulted four instalments as of now. The respondent Bank has been given liberty to resume the recovery proceedings if two defaults are committed.

¶38

Review Petition No.966 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 3265 of 2017

¶39

-2-

¶40

The OTS is claimed on the basis of Annexure 3

¶41

dated 19.10.2017. This Court does not find any reason to rely on the same since the Bank has specifically stated that there is no bona fides in the offer made without a concrete proposal. The mere statement that the Bank is interested for an OTS in the account, cannot be taken out of context to find that the Regional Office is interested and not the Branch.

¶42

The learned Counsel for the review petitioners submits that there is a concrete proposal submitted. However, that should not and must not result in defaulting the instalments. The petitioner if pays up the defaulted instalments including that of November, 2017 on or before 30.11.2017, the further instalments as in the judgment shall be permitted. The petitioner would

¶43

Review Petition No.966 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 3265 of 2017

¶44

-3-

¶45

also be entitled to submit a One Time Settlement proposal, in which event, the instalments already paid will not be taken as part of the settlement. It is also made clear that no instalment shall be defaulted by the petitioner for reason of the pending decision in the OTS proposal.

¶46

With the above observation the review petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶47

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶48

jjj 14/11/17

M/S. Silk Souk v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Silk Souk v. State of Kerala

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

M. Muhammed Ali Vs District Collector

Reni Koyipram Vs T Madhu

Suma Vs State of Kerala

Ouseph Thomas @ a.J.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Somtech Computers Vs the Executive Chairman

Saleem.C. Vs the Chief Coordinator & District Collector, Akshya Project, Kozhikode