V.A.K. Abdul Rasheed vs State Bank Of Travancore on 12 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12932 of 2009(J)


1. V.A.K. ABDUL RASHEED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.J.THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.DILIP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :12/08/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
               ........................................................................
                   W.P.(C) No. 12932 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                    Dated this the 12th August, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 sale notice issued, in

the course of the steps taken by the respondent Bank for

realisation of a sum of Rs. 5.8 lakhs in respect of the loan

availed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he

had availed two loans, the first one to the tune of Rs.4.75 lakhs

creating security interest over the property in question and

another, to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs, for which only the ‘stock in

trade’ is stated as given as security. The learned Counsel for

the petitioner submits, with regard to the second loan, that the

matter is pending consideration before the Civil Court and that

the issue in the present Writ Petition is only with regard to the

first loan.

2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits

W.P.(C) No. 12932 OF 2009

2

that the matter has already become final by virtue of Ext.P1

judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19366 of 2008,

wherein interference was ordered, subject to the condition that

the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs. One lakh within one month,

with liberty to file a representation before the second respondent

for waiver of the penal interest, giving consequential directions

and also making it clear that the balance amount due from the

petitioner should be paid by way of ‘five’ equal monthly

installments.

3. In the above circumstance, nothing further remains to

be considered in the present Writ Petition and hence the

grievance or dispute now projected by the petitioner is no more

open to be considered by this Court. With regard to the ground

of challenge raised by the petitioner that the sale proceedings

taken by the respondent Bank are not in conformity with the

relevant provisions of law, the remedy of the petitioner lies

elsewhere. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to

W.P.(C) No. 12932 OF 2009

3

pursue such statutory remedy, interference is declined.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk