M/S.Bimal Engineering Company v. M/S.Canara Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 RP.No. 1036 of 2015 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23728/2015, DATED 18-08-2015 ------------------ REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS :

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. M/S.BIMAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, SHOP NO.TC 35/837, MARKET ROAD, KOKKALA,THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR SMT.N.C.VANAJA, W/O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL, THRISSUR-680 310.

2. SMT.N.C.VANAJA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.KARUNAKARAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL, THRISSUR-680 310.

3. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MULANGU, THOTTIPAL, THRISSUR-680 310.

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.K.R.ARUN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :

-------------------------------------------------- M/S.CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH, ATHANI, THRISSUR-673 303.

BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN, S.C THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

RP.No. 1036 of 2015 ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A1:

TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

***************************************************************************** R.P.No.1036 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No.23728 of 2015 ****************************************************************************** Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015

ORDER

The writ petitioner has filed this review petition. The petitioner was given time to clear the overdue amount in instalments and the Bank was directed to regularise the account on clearing the overdue amount by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner defaulted the overdue amount, the Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings. The petitioner seeks time to clear the overdue amount.

2.

Learned counsel for the Bank opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

This Court finds that there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln