The Authorized Officer vs Pradeep Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7186 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                        RP NO. 50 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27185/2021 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:

    1      THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
           UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, KHAISE BUILDING,BEACH
           ROAD, KOLLAM- 691 001.
    2      THE BRANCH MANAGER
           UCO BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, KHAISE BUILDING, BEACH
           ROAD, KOLLAM- 691 001.
           BY ADV H.RAMANAN


RESPONDENTS:

           PRADEEP KUMAR
           AGED 47 YEARS
           S/O.PHALGUNAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, S.K.AGENCIES,
           KERALAPURAM, R/AT THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
           PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 504.
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P.NO. 50 of 2022
in
W.P.(C)NO.27185 OF 2021
                                             2


                               BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                          -----------------------------------------
                                    R.P.NO. 50 of 2022
                                              in
                               W.P.(C)NO.27185 OF 2021
                           ----------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022


                                          ORDER

This review petition is preferred seeking to review the judgment

dated 20/12/2021 to the extent it has mentioned the amount due

from the respondent as 'Rs.4,07,000/-'. According to the counsel for

the petitioner, the actual overdue amount was 'Rs.40,07,000/-' and

therefore the judgment is to be reviewed.

2. Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for the

review petitioner as well as on an appreciation of Ext.P3 notice under

Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, I am satisfied

that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record to the

extent the figure of Rs.4,07,000/- mentioned in the judgment.

Accordingly, the figure 'Rs.4,07,000/-' mentioned in paragraph

Nos. 3, 6 and 6(i) shall stand corrected as 'Rs.40,07,000/-'. This

review petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM 23/6/22