Bindu Jayakumar vs The Kerala State Financial ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11398 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

   THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.9069 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               BINDU JAYAKUMAR,
               AGED 50 YEARS
               W/O. LATE JAYAKUMAR V., VADAKKEPARAMBIL VEEDU,
               PARUMALA P.O. THIRUVALLA 689 626.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.SHAJ
               SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
               SHRI.JOSSY S. KATTUR
               SRI.C.IJLAL
               SRI.ARUN CHAND
               SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
               SHRI.MAJID MUHAMMED K.
               SHRI.ANANDU R.
               SMT.NEERAJA GOWRI A.S

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD
               CORPORATE OFFICE, "BHADRATHA" THRISSUR 680 020
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

      2        THE MANAGER,
               KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
               PANDALAM, BRANCH, PANDALAM - 689 503.



               SRI.ANOOP.P.V, STANDING COUNSEL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                          P.V.ASHA, J.
                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                 W.P(c) No.9069 of 2021-G
                       ----------------------------------------------------
                           Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021

                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims that her deceased husband had availed a loan from the

KSFE. It is stated that the respondents are taking action against the property owned by

the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property is not furnished as security

for the purpose of the loan. The petitioner claims that the said property cannot be

furnished as a security except 1/6 of its extent, in which alone the deceased husband was

having right. Pointing out this, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation before

the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard Sri P.V.Anoop, the learned Standing Counsel also, who submitted

that Ext.P2 representation would be considered in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider

and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation in accordance with law within a period of one

month after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

rtr/ W.P(c).No.9069/2021-G

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. RCL-701 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/02/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 16/02/2021.