Gangadharan N vs The Branch Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 5470 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
                                   &
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
  FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 8TH VAISAKHA, 1945
                        WA NO. 869 OF 2023
     AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2023 IN W.P.(C.)NO.
               12049/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            GANGADHARAN N ,
            AGED 68 YEARS
            S/O MADHAVAN,
            MANDAKATH HOUSE,
            ELAMKAVU ROAD,
            ALATHUR P.O,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
            PIN - 678541

            BY ADV. MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE BRANCH MANAGER,
            CANARA BANK,
            IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,
            IRINJALAKUDA P.O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680121

    2       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
            CANARA BANK,
            IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,
            IRINJALAKUDA P.O,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680121

            BY SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL



     THIS    WRIT    APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
28.04.2023,    THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME       DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No. 869 of 2023

                           2

                 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
                          &
                C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
             =========================
                W.A. NO. 869 OF 2023
             =========================
      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

                         JUDGMENT

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Appellant is a surety to a loan availed by a firm. Since

the firm defaulted in repayment, proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was initiated.

When the appellant was about to be dispossessed from the

mortgaged property, he approached this Court through

W.P.(C.)No.12049/2023. By an interim order dated

10.04.2023, learned Single Judge granted a relief to the

appellant by staying dispossession from the mortgaged

property till 06.06.2023 on condition that the appellant

remits a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-, on or before 30.04.2023

and a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, on or before

30.05.2023.

W.A. No. 869 of 2023

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,

as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

Bank, we are satisfied that no case has been made out for

interference. The impugned order is only interim in nature

and no perversity or irregularity has been pointed out to

interfere with such an interim order. In fact, the interim

order granted a breathing time to the appellant to pay the

amount of Rs.8,80,000/- in two instalments.

Taking into reckoning the aforesaid circumstances, we

are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.

However, the time limit for payment of the first instalment

directed by the learned Single Judge shall stand extended

till 10.05.2023. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above

observations.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE DCS/28.04.2023