Smitha Shaji vs Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 6781 Ker

               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

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

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.