Disposed

K.Balan Nambiar, v. the Chairman, South Indian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Dec 2023WP(C)/17254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing the bank to sell only the necessary portion of their mortgaged property, excluding their residence. The court dismissed this, directing the petitioners to approach the bank for a One Time Settlement, and deferred coercive proceedings for three weeks to consider a proposal.

What did the court decide?

Coercive proceedings deferred for three weeks; petitioners directed to approach bank for One Time Settlement.

K.Balan Nambiar, Vs the Chairman, South Indian Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17254 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1K.BALAN NAMBIAR,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.CAHTHUKUTTI NAMBIAR, SUSHAMALAYAM,
THALIKKAD, P.O.MALLANUR, SIVAPURAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702.

¶8

2P.R.BHARGAVI,
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O.K.BALAN NAMBIAR,
SUSHAMALAYAM, THALIKKAD, P.O.MALLANUR,
SIVAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702.

¶9

BY ADVS.
C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
MINI.V.A.
BEETHA VELAYUDHAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CHAIRMAN, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE , TB ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶12

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KVR TOWER, PAMPAN MADHAVAN ROAD, TALAP, KANNUR-670 002.

¶13

3THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
THALASSERY BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101.

¶14

BY ADVS.
K.MADHUSOODANAN
MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU)
SYRIAC JOSEPH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.17254 OF 2022 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2023

¶19

The petitioners, who have availed loans from the South Indian Bank Limited, have filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to sell only that portion of the property as may be seen necessary to satisfy the liability, by excluding the residential house, as requested in Ext.P4.

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioners contended that if the entire property is sold, the petitioners will be ousted from their residential building and would be thrown to streets. Furthermore, the property is a valuable asset and selling of entire property will not be required to clear the amounts payable to the Bank.

¶21

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that

¶22

WP(C) NO.17254 OF 2022 3

¶23

the valuation of the property would indicate that the property alone may not be sufficient to wipe off the accumulated liability of ₹98.50 lakhs now due from the petitioners. If the petitioners

¶24

want any settlement/One Time Settlement in the matter, the petitioners will have to approach the Bank directly. This Court under Article 226 cannot grant any One Time Settlement facility to the petitioners.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

¶26

The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to sell only that portion of the property as may be seen necessary to satisfy the liability. The contention of the Standing Counsel is that the valuation of the property would indicate that the entire property will have to be sold to clear the accumulated outstanding amount payable by the petitioners.

¶27

In that view of the matter, if the petitioners want to save their property, the petitioners will have to approach the Bank for a One Time Settlement of the matter.

¶28

WP(C) NO.17254 OF 2022 4

¶29

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the respondents for a One Time Settlement of the loan account. If the petitioners make a concrete proposal for One Time Settlement within a period of three weeks from today, the Bank may consider the same and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law. To enable the petitioners to approach the Bank and to make a One Time Settlement proposal, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioners shall stand deferred for a period of three weeks from today.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.17254 OF 2022 5

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17254/2022

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO,70/2021
OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
DISTRICT.,
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE
THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KANNUR.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.03.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit RATrue copy of the Valuation Report dated
17/06/2022 submitted by the Approved
valuer/engineer

K.Balan Nambiar, v. the Chairman, South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balan Nambiar, v. the Chairman, South Indian Bank Ltd.

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

Arun R Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

V H Mohamed Basher, Vs the Chief Manager /Authorised Officer

Thasni Oas Vs the Authorised Officer

Nazeena T.H. Vs Authorized Officer

Muhammed Hameed Vs Icici Bank

Dillens.T.D Vs the Authorised Officer