RAJESH v. VIJAYA BANK
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Jul 2008
- Bench
- S SIRI JAGAN
Provisions considered
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=W. P (C) No. 23169 of 2008=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 31st July, 2008.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the Bank. However, the petitioner does not now dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. Thepetitioner only seeks permission to pay off the amounts in instalments.2. This is opposed by the standing counsel for the Bank. However, taking a lenient view, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the amounts in instalments. Accordingly, Idispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs 2.5 lakhs within one month. The balance amount shall be paid in eight equal monthly instalments starting from the first working day of October, 2008.Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioner complies with the above directions strictly, further recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay either the Rs. 2.5lakhs or any of the subsequent instalment, it would be open to the respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated, without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/[True copy]P.S to Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 31 Jul 2008. The bench was S SIRI JAGAN.
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.