SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10915

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
WILLIAM VIRJULIUS MERCIER – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER – Respondent


J U D G M E N T

Petitioner had availed of a housing loan of Rs.28 lakhs from the respondent Bank. As security, the property purchased itself was mortgaged. Default was committed and as a result Bank has initiated SARFAESI proceedings. Finally, bank has issued Ext.P5 possession notice. It is at this stage, the petitioner has approached this court requesting that he be given a reasonable time to settle the liability. Petitioner has also produced Exts.P3 and P4 newspaper advertisements given by him for the the sale of the property and according to him if 3 months time is granted he will sell the property and will discharge the liability.

2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. The counsel for the respondent Bank justified the action initiated by the Bank.

3. True, the petitioner is a defaulter and the Bank is entitled to have initiated action for recovery of its dues also. However, petitioner only seeks 3 months time to discharge the whole liability. In WPC.No. 19709/2012 :2 :

my view, when such a request is made and as the mortgage is still remaining in force, Bank will not be prejudiced, if 3 months period is allowed to the petitioner.

4. Therefore, I direct th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top