Dismissed

Sanila Sukumar v. the Authorised Officer and Chief Manger

Kerala HC8 Apr 2024WP(C)/718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dispossession of mortgaged residential property by respondent bank after defaulting on loan instalments. Bank took possession after petitioner's mother fell ill. Court noted belated compliance with previous order but dismissed immediate claim for possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Bank for arrangement or settlement; no immediate possession restored.

Sanila Sukumar Vs the Authorised Officer and Chief Manger — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 718 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SANILA SUKUMAR AGED 43 YEARS W/O SANJU S, AP XIII/260, RESIDING AT SRAVANODHAYAM, KNK HOUSE, KANIYAPURAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695301

¶7

BY ADV N.J.MATHEWS

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANGER (CREDITS AND DISCOVERY), [APPOINTED UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002] , KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, PRAVEEN TOWERS, BAKERY JUNCTION, GPO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695001

¶10

BY ADVS. K.MADHUSOODANAN MATHEW JACOB(K/403/1999) SYRIAC JOSEPH(K/304/1980)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.718/2024

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.718 of 2024

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2024

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by

¶21

dispossession from her residential house. The petitioner

¶22

states that her late husband availed a loan of ₹4 lakhs from the Kerala Gramin Bank mortgaging a property in the joint ownership of the petitioner and her mother. The petitioner's husband committed suicide in the year 2016. The loan was thereupon transferred to the name of the petitioner and her mother. Instalments were promptly paid till 2019.

¶23

The petitioner had to quit her job in the year 2019 due to the health reasons of her mother. Consequently, payment of monthly instalments was defaulted. The Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and

¶24

W.P.(C) No.718/2024

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶27

While the mother of the petitioner was hospitalised, the Bank took physical possession of the property on 20.09.2023. On 17.11.2023, the petitioner paid ₹4,54,014/- to the Bank. However, the Bank has not returned possession of the property to the petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

The precise case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has complied with the conditions in Ext.P1 judgment, the Bank has not returned possession of the secured asset. Ext.P1 is judgment in W.P.(C) No.35586/2022 which was filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 07.11.2022 on the following lines:

¶30

(i) The outstanding amount of Rs.5,58,703/- (Rupees Five lakhs fifty eight thousand seven hundred and three only) shall be repaid in twenty equated monthly instalments along

¶31

W.P.(C) No.718/2024

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

with any accrued interest/costs;

¶34

(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.11.2022 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the last working day of the succeeding months;

¶35

(iii) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law; (iv) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶36

The petitioner states that the petitioner has paid

¶37

the amount as directed by this Court in Ext.P1. Therefore, the Bank has to give back possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner.

¶38

The Standing Counsel representing the respondents would dispute the case of the petitioner. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. Amounts were paid after the Bank took possession of the secured asset.

¶39

As the petitioner has not adhered to the time schedule prescribed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner cannot as of right claim back possession of the

¶40

W.P.(C) No.718/2024

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

secured asset. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has made substantial payments pursuant to Ext.P1 judgments though belatedly. In the facts of the case, it would be only appropriate that the petitioner approaches the Bank for any further relief.

¶43

The writ petition is therefore disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Bank for any further arrangement or settlement of loan account, in which case the Bank shall consider the case sympathetically.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/05.04.2024

W.P.(C) No.718/2024

: 6 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 718/2024

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 07/11/2022 IN WP (C) 35586/2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER RESPECTIVELY DATED 30/01/23, 30/12/22 AND 19/4/23 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.11.2022, 17.11.2023 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.4,54,014/-

Sanila Sukumar v. the Authorised Officer and Chief Manger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanila Sukumar v. the Authorised Officer and Chief Manger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cochin Social and Educational Charitable Trust, Represented by Its Secretary Vs Ms. Meera K

Raphy Antony Vs K.Vishnuraj

Arash Meenakshi Envirocare Private Limited Vs M.Babu Abdul Khadeer

We One Enterprises Rep by Its Managing Partner Mr a R Saseedharan Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Muraleedharan. K Vs the Authorized Officer

Jithin Mohanan Vs the Regional Transport Officer (Rto)