The Authorized Officer vs Pradeep Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 23, 2022

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442974

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1442974
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Jun 23, 2022
Case Number: RP/50/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Authorized Officer

Respondent

Pradeep Kumar

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice bechu kurian thomas thursday, the 23rd day of june 2022 / 2nd ashadha, 1944 rp no. 50 of 2022 against the order/judgment in wp(c) 27185/2021 of high court of kerala review petitioners: 1 the authorized officer uco bank, kollam branch, khaise building,beach 2 the branch manager uco bank, kollam branch, khaise building, beach by adv h.ramanan respondents: pradeep kumar aged 47 years s/o.phalgunan pillai, proprietor, s.k.agencies, keralapuram, r/at thadathil puthen veedu, perumpuzha p.o., kollam - 691 504. this review petition having come up for admission on 23.06.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: inbechu kurian thomas, j.----------------------------------------- in ---------------------------------------- dated this the 23rd day of june, 2022orderthis review petition is preferred seeking to review the judgmentdated 20/12/2021 to the extent it has mentioned the amount due from the respondent as ‘rs.4,07,000/-’. according to the counsel for the petitioner, the actual overdue amount was ‘rs.40,07,000/-’ and therefore the judgment is to be reviewed.2. taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for thereview petitioner as well as on an appreciation of ext.p3 notice under section 13(2) of the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002, i am satisfied that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record to the extent the figure of rs.4,07,000/- mentioned in the judgment. accordingly, the figure ‘rs.4,07,000/-’ mentioned in paragraph nos. 3, 6 and 6(i) shall stand corrected as ‘rs.40,07,000/-’. this review petition is allowed to the above extent. sd/- bechu kurian thomas judge ajm

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944 RP NO. 50 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27185/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS: 1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, KHAISE BUILDING,BEACH 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, KHAISE BUILDING, BEACH BY ADV H.RAMANAN RESPONDENTS: PRADEEP KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O.PHALGUNAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, S.K.AGENCIES, KERALAPURAM, R/AT THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 504. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: in

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

----------------------------------------- in ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022

ORDER

This review petition is preferred seeking to review the judgment

dated 20/12/2021 to the extent it has mentioned the amount due from the respondent as ‘Rs.4,07,000/-’. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the actual overdue amount was ‘Rs.40,07,000/-’ and therefore the judgment is to be reviewed.

2. Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for the

review petitioner as well as on an appreciation of Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, I am satisfied that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record to the extent the figure of Rs.4,07,000/- mentioned in the judgment. Accordingly, the figure ‘Rs.4,07,000/-’ mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3, 6 and 6(i) shall stand corrected as ‘Rs.40,07,000/-’. This review petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties The Authorized Officer vs Pradeep Kumar Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas