Dismissed

Benny Antony, v. Managing Director

Kerala HC14 Nov 2023WP(C)/5343/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 5343 of 2020, the Kerala High Court dismissed a challenge against KSFE's order extending mortgage on properties for other loan facilities, directing that the petitioners must approach the institution with a composite settlement scheme for the entire outstanding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach KSFE with a composite scheme for settlement of entire loan facilities; liberty granted to seek appropriate order thereafter.

Benny Antony, Vs Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5343 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BENNY ANTONY, AGED 53 YEARS

¶8

S/O.ANTONY, KARUVELY HOUSE, COLONIPADY, ERUMATHALA.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683112

¶9

2 JUBI BENNY AGED 43 YEARS

¶10

W/O.BENNY, KARUVELY HOUSE, COLONIPADY, ERUMATHALA.P.O,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683112

¶11

BY ADV RENNY AUGUSTINE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, P.B NO.510, THRISSUR-680020

¶14

2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM-682018

¶15

3 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, KALAMASSERY BRANCH, PREMIER JUNCTION, NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683104 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶16

4 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, P.B. NO.510, THRISSUR-680020 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(RECOVERY) BY ADV SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 5343 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners impugn Ext.P3 proceedings

¶22

issued by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises
(KSFE), whereby, the request for release of
certain properties mortgaged by them - as
security for the loan facilities availed by them
- has been rejected, on the ground that even if
the liabilities are closed, the mortgages on
them stand extended for other loan facilities
availed of by themselves, by their relatives and
their friends.

¶23

2.The petitioners assert that the
statements in Ext.P3 are incorrect and that, in
any event, when a particular loan liability is
closed, the property mortgaged against it is
required to be released.

¶24

3.Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan – learned
Standing Counsel for the KSFE, in response,

¶25

WP(C) NO. 5343 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

Rs.12,50,80,193/- and that their properties have

¶28

been mortgaged for the entire outstanding. He
submittedthat,therefore,unlessthe

¶29

petitioners are to approach the KSFE with a
proposal for settlement of all, it may not be
possible to release any property because the
equitable mortgage over them is extended to all
other liabilities.

¶30

the submissions of Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan,
because, in commercial transactions, this Court
cannot intervene with the decisions taken by the
Financial Institutions, particularly when they
say that the properties in question are covered
by various mortgages and extensions. Obviously,
therefore, if thepetitioners require

¶31

WP(C) NO. 5343 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

settlement, they will have to approach the KSFE
with a composite Scheme, with respect to the
entire outstanding and not in piecemeal,

¶34

because, as is evident from Ext.P3, the latter
attempt has already been rejected by them.

¶35

In the afore circumstances, without acceding

¶36

to the challenge of the petitioner in Ext.P3, I
close this writ petition; however, leaving
liberty to the petitioners to approach the KSFE
with an apposite representation seeking
settlement of the entire loan facilities, and if
this is done, same shall be appropriately
considered and they issued with a resultant
order in terms of law thereafter.

¶37

 Sd/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

SAS

¶41

WP(C) NO. 5343 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5343/2020

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.25515/2019 DATED 25.09.2019
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 5.09.2019
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBITTRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE
LIABILITY OF THE PETITIONER AS ON DATED
3/07/2023

Benny Antony, v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny Antony, v. Managing Director

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

Muhammed Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

Midhun K Vs Kerala Sports Council

George P.A Vs State of Kerala

T.M.Madhavankutty Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

M/S Peediakkal Agencies, Vs the State of Kerala

O.R.Velayudhankutty Vs the State of Kerala