Hebby C.J vs Union Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 12092 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

              THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

                               WP(C) NO. 41785 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

               HEBBY C.J,
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O JAMES,PROPRITOR,SOSA CEMENT AGENCIES, CHOWALLOOR HOUSE,
               ANJUR.P.O,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680523
               BY ADV FRANKLIN ARACKAL


RESPONDENTS:

     1         UNION BANK OF INDIA
               39,VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG,NARIMAN POINT.P.O,MUMBAI,REPRESENTED BY ITS
               AUTHORISED OFFICER., PIN - 400021
     2         UNION BANK OF INDIA,
               KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH,GROUND FLOOR, CROSS VIEW
               BUILDING,KUNNANKULAM.P.O,THRISSUR RERPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR
               MANAGER., PIN - 680503
               BY ADV SHRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No. 41785 of 2022
                                     ..2..




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022

The petitioner availed credit facilities from the respondent

bank and committed a default in repayment.

2. The petitioner had earlier approached this court by

filing W.P.(C) No. 27888/2021 when proceedings were initiated

against the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

This court, through Ext.P2 judgment in that case permitted the

petitioner to clear the outstanding amount in sixteen monthly

instalments. The petitioner did not comply with the judgment and

therefore, the proceedings were continued. The petitioner

thereafter filed W.P. (C) No.14947/2022 which was disposed of by

Ext.P4 judgment holding that since the request of the petitioner

made in a representation to the bank (referred to as Ext.P5 in

Ext.P4 judgment) was not acceptable to the bank, no relief can

be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has now approached

this court seeking a direction to the respondent bank to consider

Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner for excluding the

residential premises of the petitioner from the proceedings. W.P. (C) No. 41785 of 2022 ..3..

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank

would submit that the request of the petitioner is not acceptable

to the bank. It is submitted that the residential property of the

petitioner cannot be excluded from the proceedings and that the

Advocate Commissioner is proposing to take physical possession

of the secured asset today.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

bank, and having regard to the earlier judgments of this court

namely, Exts.P2 and P4, I am of the view that no relief can be

granted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition

fails. It is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE RMV W.P. (C) No. 41785 of 2022 ..4..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41785/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 30/1/2004 OF SRO KUNNAMKULAM.

Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC 2788/2021 DATED 17/12/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WPC 14947/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10/05/2022 IN WPC 14947/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/12/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE