Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
EMMANUEL THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7354 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, SHRI.RENOY VINCENT, SHRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI, SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY, SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK, FASLA N.K, SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN, SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN, SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM, SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, SHRI.JITHIN ALEXANDER SUNNY, SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K., SMT.AYISHA RISWANA, SMT.REJABANA PARVEEN T. R., SMT.FEMITHA FATHIMA, SMT.ALMIYA AJI
For the Respondents: ADV.P.A.AUGUSTINE
The court emphasizes the Bank's duty to consider requests for partial property release following prior court directions.
Headnote:The writ petition concerns the availing of credit facilities by the petitioners from the respondent Bank through property mortgages. The petitioners challenged the Bank's refusal to release a portion of the mortgaged property, leading to previous judgments directing the Bank's consideration. The Court directed the Bank to evaluate the recent request for release. Main issue involved the competency of the Bank in responding to the latest request from the petitioners, regarding property valuation and release processes. The petition is disposed of directing the Bank to address the request within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues regarding mortgage and property release. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the bank's evaluation of requests. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's directive on handling the request. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank by mortgaging their properties. The total liability, according to the petitioners, as of date is approximately Rs.5,24,00,000/-. In April, 2025, they sought partial release of a small portion of the mortgaged property. However, the Bank did not accede to the request. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.43254/2025 and by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the respondent Bank to consider the request of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said judgment, Ext.P11 communication was issued on 15.01.2026 permitting partial release of 20 cents subject to some conditions. Challenging the communication issued by the Bank, W.P.(C) No.2309/2026 was filed by the petitioners. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Bank to complete the process of releasing 20 cents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of Rs.30 lakhs to be paid by the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Bank continues to hold 444 cents of land having approximate value of Rs.9 Crores as security. The petitioners would submit that they have received an offer to sell 33 cents from the remaining mortgaged property. Therefore, they have made yet another request by Ext.P10 for release of an extent of 33 cents of property. The said request was submitted only on 16.02.2026. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent Bank to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10 request.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.
4. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the request was submitted only recently and that in order to take a decision in the matter, the Bank has to conduct valuation of the property, which may take some time. He submitted that the Bank is not averse to consider the proposal, if the same is found to be permissible and not adversely affecting the interest of the Bank.
5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the competent authority of the 1st respondent Bank to consider the request of the petitioners conveyed by Ext.P10, complete the formalities and take a final decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from today.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
