Neitha vs The State Bank Of Travancore on 21 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22047 of 2008(Y)


1. NEITHA, W/O. MUHAMMED SUJAYEE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. L.S. SUNIL, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/08/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                        ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 22047 OF 2008 Y
                   ====================

               Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008

                             J U D G M E N T

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2000 is under challenge.

2. The main ground urged was that the Chief Judicial

Magistrate does not have the power to entertain an application

under Section 14 of the said Act. As this issue was pending

consideration of a Division Bench, this writ petition was also

admitted and a stay was granted. Now it is informed that the

Division Bench by its judgment in W.A.No.428/08 and connected

cases, have dismissed the appeals and upheld the view taken by

the learned Single Judge that the Chief Judicial Magistrate is

competent to entertain an application under Section 14. In view

of this, there is nothing on merits to be considered in the writ

petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon makes a

prayer that she be permitted to discharge the liability due to the

Bank in instalments.

WPC 22047/08
:2 :

3. I heard the counsel for the Bank also on this request

of the petitioner.

4. Having regard to the submissions made, I dispose of

this writ petition directing that the amount due to the Bank shall

be discharged by the petitioner in 5 equal monthly instalments,

the first of which will be paid on or before 15/9/2008 and the

subsequent instalments on or before 15th of every succeeding

month. It is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way

of the petitioner moving for waiver of any part of her liability and

that in the event the petitioner makes any default in paying the

amount as directed above, it will be open to the Bank to proceed

with the matter without further notice to her.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp