Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sumathi @ Ammini Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist

Sumathi @ Ammini vs The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 04, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1013520

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sumathi @ Ammini

Respondent

The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist

Excerpt

.....heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank.2. petitioner challenges the sarfaesi proceedings. from the submissions made by both sides, it appears that the petitioner is a guarantor for a cash credit facility availed of in 2002 and a term loan availed of by her daughter in 2009. default was committed in both the liabilities. therefore sarfaesi proceedings were initiated by the bank and finally ext.p1 possession notice was issued. according to the counsel for the respondent, symbolic possession was also taken over. it is at that stage this writ petition is filed and the prayer made is for an instalment facility.3. having regard to the fact that the petitioner, being a guarantor, is also a defaulter, bank was fully justified in having initiated the coercive action. w.p.(c).3276/1”4. be that as it may, neither the liability nor the quantum is in dispute and all that is sought for is an instalment facility. taking note of the request made, i direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the amounts due to the bank in ten equal monthly instalments. first instalment shall be paid on or before 25.2.2013 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 25th of every succeeding month. subject to payment as above, coercive action will be deferred and in case of default. bank will be free to continue the recovery action already initiated. writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- antony dominic, judge mrcs /true copy/ sd/- p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 15TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 3276 of 2013 (H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUMATHI @ AMMINI, AGED 7 YEARS, W/O.VASUDEVAN,POOVATHUKUNNEL, ARIKKUZHA, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.B.SANDEEP, SMT.R.PRIYA, SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN. RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK,PANCHAJAM COMPLEX,TEMPLE ROAD BYE PASS ROAD,THUDPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN ”

584. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JOYI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C). NO.3276/2013-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE U/S. 13 (4) OF THE SARAFESI ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE FROM THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).3276/2013 .............................................. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2013 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

2. Petitioner challenges the SARFAESI proceedings. From the submissions made by both sides, it appears that the petitioner is a guarantor for a Cash Credit facility availed of in 2002 and a term loan availed of by her daughter in 2009. Default was committed in both the liabilities. Therefore SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the Bank and finally Ext.P1 possession notice was issued. According to the counsel for the respondent, symbolic possession was also taken over. It is at that stage this writ petition is filed and the prayer made is for an instalment facility.

3. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner, being a guarantor, is also a defaulter, Bank was fully justified in having initiated the coercive action. W.P.(C).3276/1”

4. Be that as it may, neither the liability nor the quantum is in dispute and all that is sought for is an instalment facility. Taking note of the request made, I direct that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the amounts due to the Bank in ten equal monthly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 25.2.2013 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 25th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, coercive action will be deferred and in case of default. Bank will be free to continue the recovery action already initiated. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial