Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JINTO CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
FEDERAL BANK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner defaulted on loan repayment leading to coercive actions by the bank. (Para 1) |
| 2. legal counsel presented arguments regarding deposit compliance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court determined petitioner not entitled to relief due to deposit failure. (Para 4) |
| 4. petitioner permitted to seek instalment facility from bank. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner obtained certain credit facility from the respondent bank, and when repayment was defaulted, coercive proceedings were initiated as evidenced by Ext.P1 under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to provide instalment facility.
2. I have Heard Sri.V.Visal Ajayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel for the respondent bank.
3. While admitting the writ petition on 23.02.2023, the petitioner was directed to make a deposit of Rs.8 lakhs as a condition for stay on or before 30.03.2023. The learned counsel for the respondent bank states that only an amount of R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
