M/S.Kaikara Construction … vs South Indian Bank on 16 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1053 of 2009(A)


1. M/S.KAIKARA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SOUTH INDIAN BANK,REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK,

3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,CREDIT DEPARTMENT

4. CHIEF MANAGER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK,

5. AUTHORISED OFFICER,SOUTH INDIAN BANK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :16/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                   K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WP.(C) No. 1053 of 2009
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009

                                      JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank.

2. Two complaints are raised by the petitioner. Firstly, it is

contended that this court directed by Ext.P8 to reconsider the request for

restructure of the credit facility. Ext.P9 dated 4.12.2008 purports to be the

decision on the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out

Clause 4.2.4 of Ext.P4 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to

restructure. It is pointed out that the Bank has a statutory duty and the Bank

has to act in a fair manner. He also submits that there is a prayer for the

benefit of one time settlement scheme, which involves, no doubt

permission to sell the mortgage properties. In this context, learned counsel

for the petitioner also refers to Section 13(13) of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, which, he points out, enables the debtor to sell the mortgage property

with the consent of the creditor and the consent, which is sought in Ext.P10

is therefore with the support of the statute.

WPC.1053/2009. 2

3. Learned Standing Counsel Sri. George Varghese would

point out that Ext.P9 is not even challenged. Regarding Ext.P10, it is

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that Ext.P10 is dated

29.12.2008 and the writ petition is filed on 31.12.2008. Therefore, the writ

petition is filed within two days after the filing of the representation and a

mandamus is sought to consider the same. However, learned counsel for the

respondent Bank would submit that the Bank, if it has received the

representation, will take a decision in the matter within a period of two

weeks from today.

In the light of this, I record the submission of the learned

Standing Counsel and close this writ petition.

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sb