Hussain Y vs The Authorised Officer, Indian ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9101 Ker

WP(C).23777/22                         1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
      WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 23777 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             HUSSAIN Y.
             AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.YUNUS KUNJU, RESIDING AT
             KARAZHMA, VALLIKUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA
             DIST., PIN - 690501
             BY ADVS.
             S.JUSTUS
             S.SAJEEB


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
             KOLLAM BRANCH, QMC-2419,
             MUSALIAR BUILDING, 530, CHINNAKADA,
             KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
     2       MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
             KOLLAM BRANCH, QMC-2419,
             MUSALIAR BUILDING, 530, CHINNAKADA,
             KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI. SUNIL SHANKAR (SC)


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).23777/22                             2



                                   JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred

to as the SARFAESI Act) and, in particular, by Ext.P1 sale notice dated

27.6.2022.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the

submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent bank that

there are no bidders for the sale, which is proposed to be held on 29.7.2022, as

the last date for receiving bids was yesterday (26.7.2022). It is submitted that

the writ petition has, therefore, become infructuous.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the

petitioner intends to approach the bank with an offer for One Time Settlement.

He points out that certain discussions are also going on with the officials of the

bank.

In the said circumstances, making it clear that it will be open to the

petitioner to approach the 1st respondent bank for One Time Settlement, which

shall be considered in accordance with the norms of the bank, the writ petition

is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE okb/27.7 //True copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23777/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 27.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT