Cleetus v. Authorized Officer, Uco Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/4TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 5659 of 2015 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER :
----------------- CLEETUS, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.DAVID, PALLURITHIYIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT :
--------------------- AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK, ALLEPPEY BRANCH, SREE RAJESHWARY BUILDING, CHURCH ROAD, MULLACKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688 001; BY SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE,SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 5659 of 2015 (F) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPLICATION FOR CASH CREDIT FACILITY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S SON. EXT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 18-06-2014.
EXT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14-01-2015. EXT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED 21-06-2014 ISSUED BY NEW MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL, DUBAI.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL.
--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5659 of 2015 (F) ............................................... Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's son, who had availed of a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank, defaulted in re-payment of the same. When the respondent Bank initiated steps under Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' against the secured assets, which belonged to the petitioner's son, he approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.3561 of 2013 seeking permission to repay the loan amount to the respondent Bank in installments.
2. It is stated that, the said writ petition was disposed by granting installment facility to the petitioner's son to discharge the liability to the respondent Bank. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the petitioner's son did not comply with the directions in judgment in W.P.(C) No. 3561 of 2013.
3. The petitioner in the present writ petitioner is the father, who is not the owner of the secured asset against which proceedings have been initiated by the respondent Bank. That apart, I am of the view that inasmuch as the petitioner's son had already approached this Court and obtained a favourable order and
W.P.(C) No. 5659 of 2015 (F) thereafter did not comply with the directions in the judgment, the present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner cannot be maintained. Resultantly, the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/23/02/