Smitha Shaji vs Bank Of India

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6781 Ker
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Smitha Shaji vs Bank Of India on 14 June, 2022
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 6882 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SMITHA SHAJI,
          AGED 44 YEARS
          W/O. LATE SHAJI CHACKO, PARAVATHEL HOUSE, LAKSHMI
          NAGAR, THEKKAVILA P.O., KOLLAM-691016.

          BY ADVS.
          J.ABHILASH
          VIMAL BHASKAR



RESPONDENTS:

    1     BANK OF INDIA,
          KOLLAM BRANCH, USMANIA COMPLEX, CONVENT ROAD, KOLLAM-
          691016, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

    2     AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER,
          BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM, USMANIA COMPLEX, CONVENT ROAD,
          PIN-691001.

          ADV. SRI. ANEESH K.M., SC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.6882/2022                  -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court with a limited relief. She seeks for 2 months time to hand over the vacant possession of the secured assets to the bank. It is submitted that though the petitioner along with her husband (since expired) had approached this court through W.P (C) No.7663/2019 and had obtained time to hand over vacant possession, the subsequent unfortunate incident of the petitioner's husband passing away has compelled the petitioner to approach this court again seeking 2 months time to hand over the vacant possession of the secured asset. It is submitted that within the aforesaid two months period the petitioner might be able to find a purchaser in respect of the property and the entire liability with the bank can be cleared by sale of the property and that the petitioner may be allowed to approach the bank for the same.

2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank vehementally opposes the grant of any relief pointing out that since the matter is already settled by a binding inter partis judgment (Ext.P1) no further indulgence can be shown.

3. Taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner's husband expired on 17-07-2020, as a matter of indulgence and making it clear that no further time will be granted under any circumstances, the petitioner is given time till W.P (C) No.6882/2022 -3- 14-08-2022 to hand over vacant possession of the secured asset to the authorised officer of the 1st respondent bank. In the meanwhile the petitioner may approach the bank for settlement of the liability if there is a genuine purchaser for the property in question. Any request made by the petitioner will be considered by the bank on its merits. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner to have settlement of liabilities in the manner indicated above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG W.P (C) No.6882/2022 -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6882/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/03/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 7663/2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 01/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM EVIDENCING THE DEATH OF THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND.