High Court Kerala High Court

Shri.Mohammed Ali Tharal vs Union Bank Of India Represented By … on 24 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shri.Mohammed Ali Tharal vs Union Bank Of India Represented By … on 24 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1788 of 2008(K)


1. SHRI.MOHAMMED ALI THARAL, S/O.IBRAHIM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA

3. KHALEEL T.K., S/O.ABDULLA,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.REENA ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/01/2008

 O R D E R
                               ANTONY DOMINIC, J.



                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                          W.P.(C) No. 1788 OF 2008 K

                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



                     Dated this the   24 th January, 2008



                                  J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that along with the 3rd respondent, as a co-

borrower he had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent bank.

Default was committed and proceedings under the provisions of

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was initiated. Presently,

the bank has published Ext. P6, sale notice and it is at that stage

this writ petition has been filed.

2. Though the counsel for the petitioner only seeks a

reasonable time for discharging the liability, learned counsel for the

bank points out that, as is evident from the documents produced by

the petitioner himself, there has not been any payment after

2.12.2006. According to the bank, it was only on account of the

continued default committed by the petitioner that the bank had to

W.P.(C) No. 1788 OF 2008 -2-

take coercive action.

3. In view of the admitted fact that there has been default

committed, the bank cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the

proceedings initiated.

4. Be that as it may, now that the counsel for the petitioner

only seeks reasonable opportunity for discharging the liability, I am

inclined to dispose of this writ petition giving yet another

opportunity to the petitioner to save the property from a distress

sale. Therefore, I pass the following order:

That within one month from today, the petitioner shall deposit

1/3rd of the amount that is due. Subject to such remittance, the

further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 will stand deferred.

Thereafter, the balance amount due will be paid by the petitioner in

four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be payable

on or before 5th March, 2008. The subsequent instalments will also

be payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. In case the

petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments, the

bank will be free to continue the action which has already been

initiated, without any further notice.

W.P.(C) No. 1788 OF 2008 -3-

Yet another request that is made by the petitioner is for

directing the bank to furnish an up-to-date statement of account to

enable the petitioner to commence payment. This appears to be

reasonable and the bank shall, within two weeks from today, furnish

an up-to-date statement of account to the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-