Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Naseema vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7086 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7086 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2021

Kerala High Court
Naseema vs The Authorized Officer on 1 March, 2021
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.1785 OF 2021(W)


PETITIONER/S:

                NASEEMA, AGED 58 YEARS
                W/O.YOUSUF HAJI, RESIDING AT AL BUSHRA HOUSE,
                PAIVALIGE VILLAGE AND POST, MANJESHWAR TALUK,
                KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 348.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.T.MADHU
                SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
                SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR,
                SYNDICATE BANK BUILDINGS, BANK ROAD,
                KASARAGOD-671 121.

      2         THE CANARA BANK UPPALA BRANCH,
                FORMERLY SYNDICATE BANK, UPPALA BRANCH, BEKUR P.O.,
                KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 322, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                MANAGER.




                SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1785 OF 2021                   2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is not challenging the action taken by the respondents under

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Securities Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'),

but she wants to clear the entire overdue amount of her loan account

with interest and charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that possession of the secured asset has already been taken over

by the respondents and the petitioner is wiling to repay the overdue

amount in five equated successive monthly instalments, apart from an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) in lumpsum by the end

of March, 2021. In addition , according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the petitioner will pay the regular instalments.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner had availed two

term loans and the outstanding amount as on 21.01.2021 is

Rs.41,35,800/- whereas the overdue amount of loans taken by the

petitioner is Rs.11,07,700/-. She prays for dismissal of the petition.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is willing to repay the

entire overdue amount with interest and charges and that possession of

the secured asset has already been taken by the respondents, so also

that the respondents are not interested in recovering the amount due and

payable by the petitioner towards the financial assistance availed by her,

the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-

(Rupees six lakhs only) by the end of March, 2021 and she should pay the

balance overdue amount with interest and charges in five equated

successive monthly instalments commencing from 07.04.2021. In

addition, the petitioner should also to pay the regular instalments. If the

petitioner complies with this direction, the respondents shall keep the

coercive action initiated by them under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance.

Failure to comply with this direction shall entail the respondents to

continue with the coercive action initiated against the petitioner. No

further extension of time shall be granted for compliance of this order.

After paying the entire overdue amount with interest and charges apart

from regular installments, the respondents may consider the handing

over the possession of the secured asset to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                   A.M.BADAR
ajt                                                   JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1              THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
                        02.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED
                        OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, UPPALA BRANCH.
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter