CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 06 KL CK 0061

P.J. Paulose vs The Kottayam District Co-operative, The Authorised Officer under The SARFESI and The Joint Registrar of Co-operative

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 June 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 10532 of 2010 (N)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 361 words

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from him. The case of the petitioner is that, he is aged about 84 years and was a rubber tapper. Because of the physical difficulties he was unable to do any work, which made him a defaulter and in turn the Bank proceeded with further steps under the Act as above.

2.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was earlier constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 33522 of 2008, which led to Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the petitioner had given up all the contentions with regard to the correctness and sustainability of the steps taken under the Act and the liability was permitted to be cleared as specified therein.

3.

Eventhough the petitioner effected payment, as borne by Ext.P2 series receipts, the liability could not be cleared in toto, under which circumstances, the Bank proceeded with further steps causing the property to be sold in public auction, as borne by Ext.P5. It is also submitted that the sale scheduled on 27.3.2010 did not take place as there was no bidder.

4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has made some other alternate arrangements to clear the entire outstanding liability within two months and the present Writ Petition is only to enable the petitioner to pursue such course.

5.

Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, in view of the particular facts and circumstances, further recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be pursued only after two months, so as to enable the petitioner, who is aged more than ''84 years'', to clear the liability, more so, since the sale already scheduled on 27.3.2010 did not take place. The above submission is recorded. It is also made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Bank for any other concessions or reliefs and it is for the Bank to consider the same and to extend the same to the possible extent.

The Writ Petition is closed.