Kerala High Court
WP(C)/9380/2025 of SHEREENA SHAMEER, Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA, on 2 April 2025
OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28812 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9380 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SHEREENA SHAMEER, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. SHAMEER M.K., SHAMEER GARDEN, SANU MANZIL, AZEEZ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9380 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEREENA SHAMEER,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O. SHAMEER M.K., SHAMEER GARDEN, SANU MANZIL, AZEEZ
NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008
BY ADVS.
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
ABHIRAMI S.
ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
RESPONDENT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
NANTHENCODE P.B., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER), SARB, LMS COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that an application filed by the petitioner for one time settlement has not been considered by the respondent bank.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the loan account of the petitioner is regular and it is migrated to the branch from the recovery section. It is submitted that in such circumstances there is no question of considering any application for one time settlement.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this stand of the bank is in violation of the orders issued by this Court in Ext.P4.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that if the petitioner has a case that the stand now taken by the bank is now in violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4, it is for the petitioner to initiate proceedings alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 and a separate Writ Petition seeking the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be maintained. With that observation, this Writ Petition is closed. sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE Nsd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9380/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MC 272 OF 2024, DATED 9.04.2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30.05.2024 ISSUED UNDER 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, DEPICTING THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30.05.2024 AFFIXED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20099/2024 DATED 17.07.2024 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 05.08.2024