M. SAMAD v. THE INDIAN BANK
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 13 Mar 2008
- Bench
- ANTONY DOMINIC
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioners remit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs before 31.3.2008further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 will be adjourned by the bank for a period of 3 months. In the meanwhile, it is upto the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 4998 of 2008 (T) --------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. M. SAMAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S. NIDHIN TRADERS, RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.
S. NIZA, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KNS INDUSTRIES & KOTTAYIL JEWELLERS, RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU P.O.,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE INDIAN BANK, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, P.B.NO.3573, PULLEPADY JUNCTION, CHITTOOR ROAD,ERNAKULAM-680035 BY ADV. SRI.S. EASWARAN, SC FOR BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 4998 OF 2008 - T= = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008J U D G M E N TThe challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P4 and the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to grant them sufficient time for effecting private sale of the property and clear the liabilities. 2. It would appear that the petitioners had availed of a loan from the respondent bank and on account of the default committed, proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002. It is stated that the proceedings have reached hestage when the bank has published a sale notice.
The present request made by the petitioners is that the petitioners may be given time for locating a buyer and selling the property so that better value could be realised. This request of the petitioners can be considered only if the petitioner prove their W.P.(C) No. 4998OF 2008- 2 -bonafides by making a substantial payment. Otherwise, no useful purpose will be served by delaying the sale of the mortgaged properties.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioners remit an amount of Rs.15 lakhs before 31.3.2008further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 will be adjourned by the bank for a period of 3 months. In the meanwhile, it is upto the petitioners to raise funds for liquidating the liability to the bank in full. It is clarified that in case the petitioners do not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions the bank will be free to continue the action that it has already initiated. ANTONY DOMINICJUDGEjan/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisation andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 13 Mar 2008. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.