Disposed

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan v. the Indian Overseas Bank

Kerala HC4 Oct 2018WP(C)/5990/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding defaulted overdraft recovery, the High Court of Kerala directed the bank to expeditiously consider the petitioner's request to regularize the facility pending disposal of the main petition, without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Bank was directed to consider the petitioner's Ext.P11 representation and take a decision to regularize the overdraft facility.

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan Vs the Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 12TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5990 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.P.PRASANNA KUMAR @ PRASANNAN AGED 49 S/O. PRABHAKARAN, KALAI BHAVAN, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM PO.,PALLARIMANGALAM, KAYAMKULAM REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 45, S/O. SANKARAN, KRISHNASREE, CHERUVALLY, KAYAMKULAM

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK MAVELIKKARA BRANCH,PADMA BHAVAN BUILDINGS, 1ST FLOOR, COURT ROAD,OPP. KSRTC BUS STATION, MAVELLIKKARA PIN-690101, REP. BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN RANJIT SMT.K.PARVATHY (P-938) SMT.K.SURYA SMT.NICHU WILLINGTON SRI.SUNIL SHANKER,SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C).No. 5990 of 2017

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has enjoyed an Overdraft facility with the respondent Bank. Because of the default he committed, the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition last year.

¶17

2. First, he obtained a stay, and that continued till now. The respondent Bank has filed an application to have that interim order vacated. The petitioner's counsel however submits that though the petitioner has obtained a stay, he has paid substantial amounts: more than Rs.40lakhs. According to him, the petitioner is giving up all pleas he has raised in the writ petition, save what has been mentioned in the Ext.P11.

¶18

3. To elaborate, the learned counsel submits that the respondent Bank may consider the petitioner's request to have the Overdraft facility revived or regularised because of, what the learned counsel submits, the regular payments made by the petitioner.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank on the other hand, submits that if the petitioner gets the writ petition closed and approaches the respondent

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 5990 of 2017

¶22

Bank with a request, it will consider the Ext.P11. The petitioner's counsel agrees.

¶23

Under these circumstances, without averting to the merits, I dispose of this writ petition, holding that the respondent Bank will consider the petitioner's Ext.P11 representation expeditiously and take a decision, whether the petitioner's Overdraft facility could be regularised.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE

SB/05/10/2018

WP(C).No. 5990 of 2017

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT	P1:	TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 16.1.2014 ISSUE DBY KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT	P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.2014 IN WPC NO.2656/2014, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT	P3: P4: P5: P6: P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2015 IN WPC NO.5667/2015, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TRUE PHOTOCOPYOF NOTICE DATED 18.3.2016 ISSUE DBY THE KFC TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.3.2016 IN SA.402/2014, DRT, ERNAKULAM TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION BY THE RESPONDENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.1.2017 TRUE PHOTOCOPYOF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.2.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P8 :	COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.16 TO 31.3.18 OF A/C NO.012002000001746 IN THE NAME OF HOTEL KALAI WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT	P9 :	COPY OF STATMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.12.17 TO 18.6.18 OF ACCOUNT NO.012002000001746 IN THE NAME OF HOTEL KALAI WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT	P10 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.6.18 TO 24.7.18 OF ACCOUNT NO.012002000001746 IN THE NAME OF HOTEL KALAI WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT	P11 :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18.6.18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan v. the Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan v. the Indian Overseas Bank

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

Immanuel Aviation & Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Sareesh Kumar Vs the Federal Bank Limited

Anaswara Offset (P) Ltd. Vs Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade

Kasim P.P Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

M/S. Surabhi Movies Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

M/S. Reshmi Chitties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India