Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35249/2011 of K.P.RAMESH BABU Vs SYNDICATE BANK & OTHERS on 30 December 2011
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/9TH POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 35249 of 2011 (E) IN CMP.2947/2011 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S) 1. K.P.RAMESH BABU APARNA, MANJERI PADAM ROAD EROOR, THRIPOONITHURA ERNAKULAM.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/9TH POUSHA 1933
WPC.No. 35249 of 2011 (E)
IN CMP.2947/2011 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)
1. K.P.RAMESH BABU
APARNA, MANJERI PADAM ROAD
EROOR, THRIPOONITHURA
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI
RESPONDENT(S)
1. SYNDICATE BANK
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER
CHEROOTY ROAD BRANCH
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
SYNDICATE BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE
CAMP-KOZHIKODE-673 001.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:
BKA
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
------------------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 35249 OF 2011------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who is a surety to a loan transaction is before this Court being aggrieved of the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank for realisation of the due amount from the defaulter by resorting to the steps under the SARFAESI Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, though he has already approached the Bank assuring satisfaction of the liability of the defaulter by way of installments, it is not positively dealt with, which made him to approach this Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the original defaulter had approached the DRT, Ernakulam challenging the steps taken by the Bank and subsequently the case filed before the DRT was withdrawn. The learned WP(C) NO. 35249 OF 2011
..2..
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, however, does not intend to dispute the liability and that the limited relief prayed before this Court is only to enable the petitioner to clear the entire liability in reasonable installments.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the Bank as well, who submitted that maximum indulgence was shown from the part of the Bank so as to enable the defaulter to clear the dues but in vain. It is also pointed out that the steps taken by the Bank are, of course, in accordance with law and hence the same is not assailable under any circumstance.
4. After hearing both the sides, in view of the submission made by the petitioner that the petitioner does not dispute the liability and that the only relief prayed for is to grant some installments, this Court finds it fit and proper WP(C) NO. 35249 OF 2011
..3..
to permit the petitioner to have the liability discharged accordingly. This writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of 'six' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.01.2012 and the remaining installments shall be satisfied on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. Subject to this, all the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. If any default is committed in discharging the liability as above, it will be open for the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps, from the stage where it stands now.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE
bka/-