Disposed

Mohammed Sahir v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018WP(C)/31685/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a loan-defaulter seeking injunction against recovery proceedings and direction to the bank to consider his representation for releasing property on account of medical treatment. The Court directed the bank to consider the request with notice and hearing within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation request with notice and hearing within three weeks.

Mohammed Sahir Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 31685 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED SAHIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED ISMAIL, ALUVILA PUTTHEN VEEDU, KUTHIMOODE, VELLUMANNADI P.O, TRIVANDRUM - 695607.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, FORT TRIVANDRUM - 695023.

¶11

2 BRANCH MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, VENJARANMOOD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SC THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO.OP BANK

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 31685 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who availed a loan for Rs.5,00,000/- from the 2^nd respondent Bank in the year 2013, after mortgaging his property having an extent of 63 cents, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance further recovery proceedings initiated against him pursuant to Ext.P3 sale notice (Sl.No.26 in Ext.P3) till the loan is cleared by selling a portion of the property. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take up Ext.P4 representation for release of a portion of the property and payment of amount in instalments, in the interest of justice.

¶18

On 28.09.2018, when this writ petition came up for

¶19

admission, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Bank sought time to get instructions.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank, representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

WPC 31685 OF 2018 3

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel for the District Cooperative Bank, on instructions, would submit that the total dues in respect of the loan transaction in question, as on 28.09.2018, comes to Rs.9,34,860/-. The learned Standing Counsel would also submit that considering the fact that the petitioner is undergoing treatment, as borne out from Ext.P1 medical certificate and Ext.P2 outpatient reference, the 2^nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The learned Standing Counsel would also point out that, though the sale of the property was scheduled to be held on 25.09.2018, in terms of Ext.P3 notification (serial No.26 in Ext.P3), property could not be sold.

¶23

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 request made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three

¶24

WPC 31685 OF 2018 4

¶25

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶26

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 representation and it is for the 2^nd respondent to take an

¶27

appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 31685 OF 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF KIMS, TRIVANDRUM DATED 30.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT SLIP DATED 22.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER CUTTING DATED 8.8.2018 OF DESABHIMANI WITH TRANSLATION (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION BEFORE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mohammed Sahir v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Subair Muhammed Vs Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1284

Wilson George Vs Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1284

Vinoob Viswam Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Yamuna Balaram Vs State Transport Authority

Liya Nasrin M Vs Dr. Govindababu

Santhosh Kumar.D Vs the Secretary