Ramla Himamudheen vs The Authorized Officer on 9 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 353 of 2010()


1. RAMLA HIMAMUDHEEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. UCO BANK, SWARAJ ROUND EAST,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :09/03/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. &
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ....................................................................
                         Writ Appeal No.353 of 2010
               ....................................................................
                 Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Raman, Ag. C.J.

Appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge

in W.P.(C) No.2321/2009 has preferred this appeal. Proceedings were

initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act which was challenged

before this court. Pursuant to interim order passed by this court,

various amounts were paid. Taking into account all such payments,

balance as on the date of filing the Writ Petition comes to Rs.8 and odd

lakhs It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Bank that the Bank was prepared to give further concession of

Rs.2,60,000/- and according to him, the balance will be little over Rs.6

lakhs. However, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to

give an amount of Rs.6 lakhs in full and final settlement of the dues

and gave one month’s time to pay the said amount.

2. We have heard learned counsel Sri.M.Ramesh Chander

appearing for the appellant as also Sri.George Varghese, Standing

2

Counsel for the Bank. In the factual situation as stated above and in

view of the stand taken by the Bank that no further concession can be

extended, court cannot issue any mandate to the Bank to give any

further concession. In such circumstances and having regard to the

balance amount fixed by the learned Single Judge which is Rs.6 lakhs,

we do not find any error in the judgment to be interfered with in this

appeal. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

3. However, since the one month time granted by the learned

Single Judge has expired, if the appellant deposits the above said Rs.6

lakhs within one month from today, the Bank will accept the same and

discharge the appellant from any further liability and the account will

be treated as closed.

P.R.RAMAN
Acting Chief Justice

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms