Umayya, v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged bank's sale notice under SARFAESI Act. Court held non-compliance with interim deposit order warranted dismissal. Petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner mandated to work out statutory remedies.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12563 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
1UMAYYA,
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O LATE AHAMMAD KUTTY, NJERALIL HOUSE,
ANDONA, RAROTH, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
M.K.MUFEED
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENTS:
1CANARA BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
KODUVALLY BRANCH, KODUVALLY P.O,
KOZHIKODE-673572, PIN - 673572
2BRANCH MANAGER,
CANARA BANK , KODUVALLY BRANCH,
KODUVALLY P.O, KOZHIKODE-673572, PIN - 673572
3NAMSHAJ C.N,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O AHAMMAD KUTTY LATE, NJERALIL HOUSE,
ANDONA, RAROTH, KOZHIKODE-673573, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL(K/000230/1980)
SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
ANIRUDH KADAVIL
FIROZ
M.J.RAJASREE(K/330/1994)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.12563 of 2023
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be entertained given the petitioner's failure to comply with the interim order of depositing Rs.20 lakh.
Whether this Court should interfere with proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act despite the petitioner's readiness to pay in instalments.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
1UMAYYA
- respondent
CANARA BANK
- respondent
BRANCH MANAGER
- respondent
NAMSHAJ C.N
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court