The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging recovery steps by Syndicate Bank. The Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with an interim order requiring a payment of ₹10,00,000 to stay proceedings, thus losing entitlement to discretionary relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/25TH ASWINA, 1939
WP(C).No. 32091 of 2017 (J)
PETITIONER(S):
RENJITH M.P.,
RESIDING AT MATHRAMKOT HOUSE, IRINGAPURAM P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR-680103.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
SMT.SABINA JAYAN DR.SHERINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SYNDICATE BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR BRANCH, AUTHORISED OFFICER, SARFAESI ACT, -680 005.
2. LINSY SHOBY, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR-3.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.N.RAJENDRAN,SC,SYNDICATE BANK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
nkr
WP(C).No. 32091 of 2017 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2012 IN SA NO.586/2012 BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SA NO.80/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER BEFORE THE DRT-II ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
nkr
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.32091 of 2017 (J)
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the recovery steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of defaulted loan amounts. When the matter was taken up today, it was noticed that the petitioner was already granted a stay against recovery proceedings on condition that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on or before 16.10.2017. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not effectively complied with the direction in the interim order dated 10.10.2017. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
nkr/19.10.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to discretionary relief when they failed to comply with an interim order directing payment of ₹10,00,000 to stay recovery proceedings.
Whether the Court should grant relief under Article 226 when the petitioner neglected an existing stay condition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RENJITH M.P.
THE SYNDICATE BANK
LINSY SHOBY
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
