Defaulters sought time to clear debt. Court noted prior failure to utilize granted time and lack of payment. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits due to the efflux of time and failure of petitioners to pay.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 9832 of 2018
PETITIONER:
1 P.V.SAREESH KUMAR S/O.UTHAMAN, PUTHUKUDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POLINJAPALAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI-685561.
S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHUKUDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POLINJAPALAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI-685561.
W/O.UTHAMAN, PUTHUKUDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POLINJAPALAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI-685561.
BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ADIMALY BRANCH, IDUKKI-685561, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, THEKKUMKAL BUILDING, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9832 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, defaulters, faced with recovery proceedings, seek six months' time to pay off the entire debt to the respondent bank.
2. According to the petitioners' counsel, if two month's time is given, the petitioners will clear the entire debt. In response, the bank's counsel submits that the petitioners earlier filed an S.A. But that was dismissed through Ext.R2(a) order, dated 24.11.2017. He asserts that the petitioners filed the S.A.in 2013 and even by 2017, they have not paid any amount. So, the Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the S.A. Here too, the petitioner, submits the bank's counsel, filed the writ petition in March — seeking six months' time
— and that time is over by now. Despite that, they have not paid any amount.
3. Under these circumstances, by efflux of time the very relief the petitioner sought stood granted; that is, six months' time to pay. But the petitioners have not paid. So I see no reason to entertain this writ petition beyond the relief the petitioner has sought.
I therefore dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
WP(C).No. 9832 of 2018
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.C.NO.502/2017 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFER MADE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OPTION DATED 20/02/2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE
SD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking extension of time to repay a debt should be entertained when the petitioner has failed to utilize the previously granted time.
Whether the writ petition is devoid of merits due to the efflux of time and lack of repayment by the petitioners.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.V.SAREESH KUMAR S/O.UTHAMAN
P.N.UTHAMAN
SOBHA UTHAMAN
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ADIMALY BRANCH
AUTHORIZED OFFICER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
