Najumunneesa vs The Authorised Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 10930 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        Thursday, the 3rd day of November 2022 / 12th Karthika, 1944
                  IA.NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 20105 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

  1. NAJUMUNNEESA, AGED 32 YEARS W/O. JAFFER SADIQ1 B., PAJJYAMMA HOUSE,
     MAIRE, KASARAGODE-671552.
  2. JAFFER SADIQ B., PAJJYAMMA HOUSE, MAIRE, KASARAGODE-671552.

RESPONDENTS:

  1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, CTM TOWERS, OPP. P-T QUARTERS,
     KASARGODE-671123.
  2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CTM TOWERS, OPP. P-T QUARTERS,
     KASARGODE-671123.

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to For the reasons
stated in the accompanying affidavit and that may be urged at the time of
hearing, it is humbly prayed that the petitioners may be granted some more time
and installments to pay off the debt ordered by this Hon'ble Court, to meet the
ends of Justice.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS, C.VIVEK, ASHLY JAMES, APARNA NAIR & RENJINI
RAMESHAN, Advocates for the petitioners, the court passed the following:
                                 ORDER

W.P.(C)No.20105/2022 was disposed of on 27-06-2022,

granting to the petitioner the liberty to pay the outstanding amount

in 20 equal monthly installments commencing from 25-07-2022. The

petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 seeking extension of time, on which

the following order was passed on 07-10-2022.

"Petitioner seeks extension of time to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 27.6.2022. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that no amount has been paid as directed by this Court and as on date, the default of payment in terms of the judgment itself comes to nearly Rs.11 lakhs. It is submitted that if the amount payable in terms of the judgment for the month of October is also factored, the amount payable by the petitioner as on date will be more than Rs.14 lakhs. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that unless the petitioner shows bona fides, the question of extension of time cannot be considered.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will attempt to remit a substantial amount on or before 31.10.2022.

3. The taking of physical possession of the secured asset shall stand deferred till 02.11.2022 on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) before 5 pm on 10.10.2022 and a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) on or before 31.10.2022".

2. Even today when the matter is taken up, it is submitted I.A.No.1 of 2022 In

that the petitioner was not able to comply with the conditions

and no amount has been remitted.

Taking into consideration the above, I.A.No.1/2022 will

stand dismissed making it clear that since the petitioner has

not complied with the directions contained in the earlier

judgment, it will be open to the Bank to continue with the

proceedings against the petitioner.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

ats