Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

P.B.Kunji Ahammed Haji Vs Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

Home
Kerala HC
2017
P.B.Kunji Ahammed Haji Vs Uco BankP.B.Kunji Ahammed Haji v. Uco Bank

Dismissed

P.B.Kunji Ahammed Haji v. Uco Bank

Kerala HC5 Jan 2017WP(C)/64/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

N/A

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938

WP(C).No. 64 of 2017 (G)

PETITIONER(S):

P.B.KUNJIAHAMMED HAJI, S/O KUNHABDULLA HAJEE, AGED 52 YEARS, VARAPPURATH HOUSE, PERODE P.O., NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE-673504.

BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

RESPONDENT(S):

UCO BANK, KOZHIKODE BRANCH, REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, JAYANTHI BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, KOZHIKODE.673501.

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

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act by a defaulter who admits liability can be disposed of on terms granting time-bound payment and abeyance of proceedings.
2.
To what terms the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
3.
Whether the writ petition requires to be disposed of after making mandatory conditions for repayment of dues.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
P.B.KUNJIAHAMMED HAJI
respondent
UCO BANK

Coram

AI extract

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 5 Jan 2017 · January
Registered: 3 Jan 2017
Case no.: WP(C)/64/2017

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.vinod Chandran

Abdu Rahiman Vs Sri Muraleedharan
4 Jan 2017
Shakeela Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kerala and Lakshadweep
4 Jan 2017
T.O.Aleyas Vs the Authorized Officer
4 Jan 2017
Nithin Thomas Vs Ajitha B.
5 Jan 2017

Cite this judgement

P.B.Kunji Ahammed Haji v. Uco Bank, WP(C)/64/2017 (KL), decided on 5 January 2017.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act by a defaulter who admits liability can be disposed of on terms granting time-bound payment and abeyance of proceedings. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petitioner challenging recovery under SARFAESI Act admitted liability but contested failure to intimate quantification. Considering impecunious circumstances, Court disposed of writ petition on terms: produce certified copy of judgment to Bank; Bank to grant ten monthly instalments starting 06.02.2017; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance conditioned on remittance of instalments without default; revival of recovery on second default; final statement of interest after tenth instalment; proceedings unenforceable upon full compliance. Nih 1000-word strongly supported summary text below. N/A summary text: The petitioner, a defaulter in a housing loan from the respondent Bank, challenged recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enf

A compact analysis

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.

EL

WP(C).No. 64 of 2017 (G)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE

COMMISSIONER DATED 22.12.2016.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

EL

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No.64 of 2017 G

Dated this the 05^th day of January, 2017

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, a defaulter in repaying the housing

loan availed of from the respondent Bank is before this Court challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short SARFAESI

Act). The liability and the default is admitted and the only contention is against failure to intimate quantification. Considering the facts of the case and the alleged impecunious circumstances of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

(i) The petitioners shall produce a certified copy of

this judgment before the respondent within two weeks of

WPC No.64/2017

2

receipt of the same.

(ii) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent Bank submits that the arrears due as on today is Rs.10,37,328/- (Rupees Ten lakhs thirty seven thousand three

hundred and twenty eight).

(iii) The respondent shall grant ten monthly

instalments for the payment of the balance dues, starting from 06.02.2017 and followed up on the 06^th of each succeeding

month.

(iv) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance

on condition that the remittances as per this order are made

without any default.

(v) On the petitioner making two defaults, the

recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.

(vi) On the 10^th instalment being satisfied, the

WPC No.64/2017

3

respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued from

15.01.2017 which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 6^th of

the succeeding month.

(vii) On the petitioner satisfying the entire arrears,

the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above, making it clear

that the respondent will be free to proceed with the recovery if

the above conditions are not complied with.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN,

Judge

jma

//true copy//

P.A to Judge

CNR

KLHC010480112017

Topic

Banking and Recovery

Bench

K.vinod Chandran

Disposal

DISPOSED OF

Subina K.V. Vs Anitha Kumari P.N., Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in-Charge, Kozhikode

5 Jan 2017

Gireesh Gopal Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

5 Jan 2017