Shakir vs The Authorised Officer on 6 March, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Shakir vs The Authorised Officer on 6 March, 2020

Bench: Amit Rawal

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

     FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941

                       WP(C).No.5954 OF 2020(T)


PETITIONER:

               SHAKIR,
               AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ALI,
               MANNILTHODI HOUSE, KEEZHUPARAMBU P.O,
               MALAPPURAM-673 639

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN
               SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
               IRINJALAKKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.55,
               HEAD OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA-680 121.

      2        IRINJALAKKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.55,
               HEAD OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA-680 121.

               BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5954/2020                2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner had availed an overdraft facility of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and temporary overdraft facility of Rs.13,00,000/-. The repayment was defaulted, consequent to which proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are initiated. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that as on today, the total overdue amount for two loans is Rs.2,73,15,496/-. The learned counsel for the Bank informs that the Bank can defer the sale scheduled for 9 th March 2020 in case the petitioner deposits half of the amount.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner cannot afford such a huge amount, but he is willing to pay W.P.(C) No.5954/2020 3 Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Court cannot interfere with the action initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has an alternative remedy before the DRT. This Writ Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT.

With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE csl W.P.(C) No.5954/2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 15.11.2019 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 4.2.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court