Kerala High Court
K G Padmanabhan vs The Manager, State Bank Of India on 3 May, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WA NO. 606 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.10005 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :
K G PADMANABHAN
AGED 56 YEARS
SREENILAYAM HOUSE, NO 340 BHAGAVATHY PADI JUNCTION
PATHIYOOR EAST, P O, KEERIKKAD ALAPPUZHA., PIN -
690508
BY ADV S.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT S:
1 THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DIST. KERALA, PIN -
690502
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH [SARB III] 40/947, 7TH
FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS PALARIVATTOM BYE PASS
JUNCTION, KOCHI, PIN - 682024
SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC FOR SBI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.05.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.606 of 2024 2
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & EASWARAN S. , JJ.
------------------------------------
W.A. No.606 of 2024
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of May 2024
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
When this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the
appellant fairly conceded that his client had been unable to make
payment of any amount as per the judgment, or even to accede to the
suggestion made across the bar - when this matter was considered
earlier, to honour an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs before this date. He,
however, submitted that, since the proceedings initiated by the bank
are under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act')
and since his client is likely to obtain other courses of action in the
future, liberty may be reserved to him to invoke it, as and when it
becomes available.
2. Sri. Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel for the respondent
bank, in response, stated that only symbolic possession of the secured
asset has been taken and that his client intents to take further action as
per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
3. In the afore circumstances, we close this Writ Appeal, recording
that the petitioner has neither complied with the directions in the
impugned judgment, nor has honoured the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs
before this date - as suggested at the bar when this matter was earlier
considered; thus, conceding to the request of the petitioner to withdraw
this appeal, however, with liberty being reserved to him to invoke every
other remedy, as and when it becomes available under law.
After we dictated this part of the judgment, Sri. S. Ganesh, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, requested that liberty may also be
reserved to his client to approach the learned Single Judge for review
and such other remedies, if he is so advised. Obviously, such remedies,
if available to the petitioner, are not interdicted by this judgment and
are left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN , JUDGE
Sd/-
NS EASWARAN S., JUDGE
