Allowed

Shanavas v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of Inida

Kerala HC12 Feb 2024WP(C)/2554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claimed title documents were retained after loan settlement. Court granted relief conditionally based on Bank's concession, directing release pending outcome of third-party litigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Bank to handover the title documents of the mortgaged property to the petitioner, subject to pending litigations and without prejudice to the rights of Smt. Sunitha Menon.

Shanavas Vs the Branch Manager, Union Bank of Inida — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2554 OF 2024

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SHANAVAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O MYTHEIN KANNU,
PROPRIETOR, M/S.KHADEEJA AGENCIES, MANGALAPURAM,
THONNACKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695317

¶6

BY ADV C.AJITH KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INIDA
ATTINGAL BRANCH, 17/921, SHAMS COMPLEX,
OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, VVC ROAD, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695101

¶9

BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2554/24

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he had availed of a certain loan facility

¶15

from the respondent-Bank; and that he has paid the entire amount which the Bank had demanded under a one-time-settlement, thus closing the loan account fully. He says that, however, the title documents of the property, which had been offered as collateral security, has been still retained by the Bank; and therefore, pray that the same be directed to be released to him, within a time frame to . be fixed by this Court

¶16

2 . However, in response to the afore submissions of

¶17

Sri.C.Ajith Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sadchith

¶18

Kurup - learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of his client, wherein, it has been averred that the property of the petitioner had initially been put to auction, when the loan facility was categorised as a ‘Non Performing Asset’; and that it was purchased by a person by name Smt.Sunitha Menon, who had deposited 25% of the bid amount. He added that Smt.Sunitha Menon, thereafter, did not pay

¶19

¶20

WPC 2554/24

¶21

the balance; consequently, that the afore and said amount was

¶22

forfeited, against which, she filed S.A.No.582/2023 before the Debts

¶23

Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. He further explained that, when the

¶24

afore S.A. was initially not numbered, Smt.Sunitha Menon filed O.P. (DRT)No.62/2023 and WP(C)No.5742/2023 before this Court, which were both allowed and the S.A. thus ordered to be numbered, against the orders in which, the Bank has preferred W.A.Nos.1775/2023 and 1746/2023 respectively, which are still pending. He submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner is willing to accept the title documents, subject to the outcome of the afore litigations, his client will not stand in the way of such orders being issued by this Court.

¶25

3 . I notice from the file that the aforementioned Smt.Sunitha

¶26

Menon is not a party in this case and this Court is not aware as to

¶27

what she requires from the Bank – namely, whether she wants the forfeited amount to be refunded to her; or to maintain her claim over the property in question.

¶28

4 . In such circumstances, obviously, this Court can only go

¶29

by the concession now made by the Bank, as available in paragraph

¶30

WPC 2554/24

¶31

¶32

6 of their counter affidavit; and I record that this has been fully

¶33

acceded to by Sri.C.Ajith Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner also.

¶34

In the afore circumstances, recording the submissions of the respondent-Bank as available in paragraph 6 of their counter affidavit

¶35

and further recording that the petitioner accedes to such conditions

¶36

implicitly, I allow this Writ Petition; resultantly directing the Bank to handover the title documents of the property mortgaged by the petitioner, subject to the pending litigations and without prejudice to

¶37

the rights of the aforementioned Smt.Sunitha Menon, in any manner

¶38

whatsoever.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RR

¶41

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

WPC 2554/24

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2554/2024

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/06/2023
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit -P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/09/2023
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
Exhibit -P3TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE
DATED 10/10/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER

Shanavas v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of Inida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanavas v. the Branch Manager, Union Bank of Inida

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

Moyyadan Narayani, Vs Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Sumesh Thankachan Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Thalassery

N. Sundareshan Vs State of Kerala

Safeermon a Vs Remla Beevi I

Shine Mathew Vs Remla Beevi . I

K Manoharan, Vs the Kerala Water Authority