Partly allowed

Baburaj v. Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

Kerala HC11 Jan 2017WP(C)/316/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition regarding recovery proceedings from a cash credit default. The Court stayed recovery for 12 monthly installments, making it conditional on compliance; failure triggers revival of proceedings and surrender of possession.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed for 12 monthly installments starting 13.02.2017; recovery revives upon two defaults; possession to be surrendered on default after relief.

Baburaj Vs Authorized Officer, Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/21ST POUSHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 316 of 2017 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

BABURAJ, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O DENNISON, RAJ NIVAS, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

-----------

¶12

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK UCO BANK BUILDING, OVER-BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

BY SRI.DEEPAK JOY K., SC, UCO BANK

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 316 of 2017 (L) --------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENCE UNDER KERALA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES WHICH IS VALID UPTO 31.3.2014 IN THE NAME OF MOTHER OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.10.2016 UNDER SECTION 13(2)OF SARFAESI ACT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 6.12.2016 UNDER SECTION 13(4)OF SARFAESI ACT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

¶20

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶21

===================== W.P.(C)No.316 of 2017 - L

¶22

========================= Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2017

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner, who availed a cash credit facility, is

¶25

aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated against him for default committed. The liability and the default is admitted and the only contention is against failure to intimate quantification. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that Rs.9,28,877/- is the total dues as on 11.01.2017 and the cash credit limit is Rs.9,00,000/-. Considering the facts of the case and the alleged impecunious circumstances of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

¶26

(i) The 1^st respondent shall grant twelve monthly

¶27

instalments for the payment of the total dues in the account, starting from 13.02.2017.

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C)No.316/2017

¶30

(ii) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance

¶31

on condition of the remittances as per this order being made without any default.

¶32

(iii) On the petitioner making two defaults, the

¶33

recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.

¶34

(iv) On the 12^th instalment being satisfied, the

¶35

respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued from 11.01.2017, which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 13^th of the next succeeding month.

¶36

(v) On the petitioner satisfying the entire arrears, the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable and on default being committed, the petitioner without demur will surrender possession.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No.316/2017

¶39

Writ Petition is disposed of as above, making it clear

¶40

that the respondent will be free to proceed with the recovery

¶41

if the above conditions are not complied with.

¶42

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

SB/11/01/2017

¶44

// true copy //

¶45

P.A to Judge

Baburaj v. Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburaj v. Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

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

Ranjan Vs Anil Kumar

M/S Ardra Associates Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Barry Vs State Bank of Travancore

Bineesh Vs Corporation Bank

Nazar Vs the State Bank of Travancore

L. Satheek Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (Wc)