Writ petition by a defaulter challenging SARFAESI proceedings. Court allowed payment of outstanding amount in six monthly installments, dropping further distress action conditionally.
Dropping of further distress action if the petitioner remits the entire outstanding in six equal monthly instalments commencing from October 2008.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930
WP(C).No. 23912 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
PAUL MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.P.MATHEW, INCHAKKATTIL, PIRAVOM.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF, SMT.MIJI JOHN, SRI.A.FEROS KHAN.
RESPONDENT:
----------------------
1. BANK OF BARODA, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, PALLIMUKKU, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, PALLIMUKKU, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.23912/2008-V:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 05/08/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
prv.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
================================== W.P.(C)No.23912 of 2008-V
==================================
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner availed a loan from the first
respondent and defaulted in repayment. Since the respondents recalled the facility on it becoming a non-performing asset, SARFAESI Act proceedings were initiated and a notice was issued on 12-12-2005
calling for payment in full discharge of the liability. Since that was not adhered to, Ext.P1 possession notice was issued listing the sale on 28-2-2006. At this point of time, the petitioner requests that he may be permitted to pay off the defaulted EMI and have the loan regularized. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent states, on
instructions, that having regard to the outstandings and the default even after the loan
being recalled in 2005, do not advise the respondents to agree to reschedule the transaction or to regularize the same. I do not find any
WPC23912/08
-:2:-
jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the classification of a loan. With the aforesaid scenario, rejecting all contentions and precluding the petitioner from taking recourse to statutory remedies, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner remits the entire outstandings in six equal monthly instalments, payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from October, 2008, further distress action will stand dropped. If the petitioner fails to remit the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled and this writ petition will stand dismissed enabling the respondents to forthwith proceed with further distress action without fresh notice to the petitioner.
sl.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be permitted to regularize the defaulted loan by paying off the outstanding EMI in instalments amidst ongoing SARFAESI proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paul Mathew
Bank of Baroda
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
