Allowed

Sivasankaran v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC3 Dec 2007OP/9210/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing recovery of a loan for a mini dairy farm which failed due to cow death. Court directed bank to grant incentives under RBI guidelines and waive penal interest if not settled within six months. Recovery proceedings withheld temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Bank to grant incentives under RBI guidelines and waive penal interest; directing Tahsildar to withhold recovery for six months.

Sivasankaran Vs the Branch Manager — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2007 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 9210 of 2003(U) ----------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

SIVASANKARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KALLIYANIYIL HOUSE, JELLIPARA P.O., ATTAPPADY, MANNARKKAD (VIA), PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN SMT.PRAVITHA A.R

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MUKKALI BRANCH, P.O.MUKKALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD.

¶15

R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶16

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

ORDER ON CMP 16010 OF 2003 IN OP 9210 OF 2003

¶20

DISMISSED

¶21

3.12.2007 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29.8.2002

¶27

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE DATED 20.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2002

¶29

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FOR RECOVERY OF DUES RELATING TO NON PERFORMING ASSETS.

¶30

FIRST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SANCTION DATED 23.2.1995

¶32

EXTR1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT DATED 10.3.2003

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶36

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶37

O.P. NO. 9210 OF 2003

¶38

Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2007

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the Bank. Petitioner admittedly availed loan from the first respondentBank and committed default. Consequently recovery was initiated. Under interim orders of this Court petitioner paid Rs. 25,000/-. Besides this, petitioner has paid Rs. 49,510/- is the contention of counsel for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, loan was availed for starting a mini dairy farm and petitioner sustained loss on account of death of cows. In any case, since it is a priority sector loan, Bank should show some leniency to the petitioner, more so when the business failed. Counsel for the Bank submitted that though incentives were offered, petitioner did not avail the benefit by remitting the amount. O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to grant incentives under RBI guidelines for settlement of liability. Petitioner is free to avail the incentives available under RBI circulars and settle the liability. If time for granting incentives under the RBI guidelines is

¶41

¶42

over, there will be direction to the Bank to waive complete penal and default interest and allow the petitioner to settle liability at contract rate of interest after setting off the payments already made by the petitioner. Third respondent is directed to withhold recovery proceedings for six months from now to enable the petitioner to settle liability with the Bank. If the petitioner does not settle liability under OTS or excluding penal and default interest as stated above, full amount will be recovered from the petitioner with penal interest and other charges.

¶43

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶44

Sivasankaran v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankaran v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veluthaparambath Assya Vs K.S.E.Board

K.Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Selvaraj Vs Commissioner,Commercial Tax,Trivandrum

K.Raziabi Vs Mony

P.K.Devi Vs K.M.T.W.W.F.Board, Kozhikode

Paily Varghese Vs State of Kerala