Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Kerala High Court

Mathewkutty Varghese vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 4 December, 2008

Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35893 of 2008(W)


1. MATHEWKUTTY VARGHESE, KORAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE

3. AUTHORISED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,

4. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF

5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

6. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :04/12/2008

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                 ----------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C)No.35893 of 2008-W
                 ---------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008.

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner submits that he is a defaulter of loan availed from the first respondent. Following Ext.P2, the petitioner has placed Ext.P4, in reply to Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Under normal circumstances, the said notice does not give any cause of action for a litigation, in the light of the law laid by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & others Vs. Union of India & others (2004(4) SCC 311). The case in hand however, shows that the petitioner's building caught fire and according to him, he sustained certain loss. I am surprised that even according to the bank, the hypotheticated building is not insured, at least at its instance.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is directed that Ext.P4 will be considered by the Board of the 1st respondent at the earliest and appropriate decision taken. In the meanwhile, there will be no further distress action against the petitioner, if he pays an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of four weeks. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.





                                 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
ab 4/12                                             JUDGE