Disposed

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

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018WP(C)/17444/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner borrowed loans from respondent bank and sought relief for instalments. Justice Naidu held that if the petitioner has a statutory cause of action, no court order is needed to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ was disposed without preserving liberty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty implicitly preserved to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal if aggrieved.

Reji M.P. Vs the Branch Manager,Karur Vysa… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

REJI M.P. S/O.POULOSE, AGED 48, 17/346, ASSET CITY BAY NO. 10C CHATHARI, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DT. 682301

¶6

BY ADVS.SMT.M.R.REENA SRIP.S.SUJETH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER,KARUR VYSA BANK ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KC. CENTRE, OPPT. NORTH POLICE STATION, KACHERYPADY, CHITOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682018

¶9

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER KARUR VYSYA BANK, ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, KC. CENTRE, OPPT. NORTH POLICE STATION, KACHERYPADY, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682018

¶10

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GEORGE

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No. 17444 of 2018 (E)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶15

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.10.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 15.12.2017 AFFIXED EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.02.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER

¶16

jjj

¶17

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 17444 of 2018 (E)

¶19

Dated: 18^th July, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner borrowed about Rs.93 lakh under two loan

¶22

accounts: a housing loan and a vehicle loan. As on 14.07.2018, the outstanding amount in both the loans is Rs.93 lakh, and the accumulated arrears come to Rs.20,16,000/-. The petitioner pleads for instalments. The respondent Bank opposes.

¶23

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Bank's counsel submits that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and the Bank has already initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take possession of the property. Though he has contended that the petitioner has already sold away the secured property, the petitioner's counsel denies it.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.17444/2018

¶25

-2-

¶26

At any rate, the Bank is disinclined to accommodate

¶27

the petitioner's request for instalments. Now the petitioner's counsel wants liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

¶28

I reckon that even without this Court's preserving the liberty, if the petitioner has a cause of action to take recourse to statutory remedy, nothing prevents the petitioner.

¶29

I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition leaving it open for

¶30

the petitioner to take appropriate course of action if he is still aggrieved.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶33

jjj 18/07/2018

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

A.P. Baby Vs the Authorized Officer/Regional Manager

K.K Praveen Vs Authorized Officer

C. Dileep Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court

Raju G.T Vs Authorised Officer Magma Housing Finance Limited

M.R. Rajendran Nair Vs the Corporation of Cochin

T. Rajagopal Vs City Union Bank Ltd.