Allowed

P.A. Mohammed Sahir v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC19 Jul 2018WP(C)/15684/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a borrower facing recovery, sought the court to direct the State Bank of India to consider his one-time settlement proposal. The court disposed of the petition without addressing merits, directing the bank to consider the proposal expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The respondent bank directed to consider the petitioner's representation for the one-time settlement scheme at the earliest.

P.A. Mohammed Sahir Vs the Authorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 15684 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

P.A. MOHAMMED SAHIR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM- 686 122.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMEC, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY SRI.M.JITHESH MENON, SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

mks

¶13

WP(C).No. 15684 of 2018 (I)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 13 (2) NOTICE DATED 12/07/2017 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 05/10/2017 EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONETIME SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL DATED 26/06/2018

¶17

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

mks 24/07/2018

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶23

W.P.(C). No.15684 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner, a borrower, faced with recovery proceedings,

¶27

filed this writ petition. Now, he has drawn my attention to Ext.P4: the petitioner's representation, dated 12.6.2018, filed before the bank, seeking the benefit under OTS scheme.

¶28

The petitioner requested this Court to dispose of this writ petition, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P4 representation, expeditiously.

¶29

The bank's counsel submits that this Court may dispose of the writ petition as the petitioner desires. He has also submitted that this Court may refrain from observing anything on merits.

¶30

I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition, without adverting to

¶31

the merits of the matter, holding that the respondent bank may consider the petitioner's Ext.P4 representation in accordance with law at the earliest.

¶32

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶33

css/

P.A. Mohammed Sahir v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.A. Mohammed Sahir v. the Authorized Officer

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

Raju G.T Vs Authorised Officer Magma Housing Finance Limited

Reji M.P. Vs the Branch Manager,Karur Vysa Bank

M.R. Rajendran Nair Vs the Corporation of Cochin

K.v.Babu Vs Union Bank of India

Joseph Pothen Vs the Welfare Fund Inspector

N.Sheela Vs Uco Bank