High Court Kerala High Court

S. Nalinakumari vs The Federal Bank on 25 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
S. Nalinakumari vs The Federal Bank on 25 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5281 of 2008(D)


1. S. NALINAKUMARI, W/O. S.MOHANKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE FEDERAL BANK,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER,

3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,

4. THE MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/02/2008

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.5281 of 2008
                  -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a defaulter to the respondent bank. It is

stated that he had availed five loans. According to the

petitioner, she has identified purchaser for the properties

mortgaged for availing of three of the loans. But, the second

respondent informed that the documents would be handed over

only after the entire liabilities are settled. It is in this

background, the writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is praying for a direction to the bank to

release the related documents once the individual liabilities are

discharged by the petitioner. I am not inclined to issue any

direction to the bank in this writ petition.

3. This is for the reason that when proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002, petitioner had approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C) No.36897/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by

Ext.P3 judgment dated 18th December, 2007. In the said

WPC.5281/2008 2

judgment, petitioner was directed to remit Rs.5 lakhs within 15

days and to pay the balance amount in four equal monthly

instalments, in the manner indicated there. It is the admitted

position that payment was not made. It is thereafter this writ

petition has been filed raising new contentions. In my view,

since the petitioner is not only a defaulter to the bank but also

defaulted in complying with Ext.P3 judgment of this Court and

hence she is not entitled to get any leniency from this Court.

The writ petition fails and dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

csl