Disposed

Idicula.P.I v. the Authorised Offcer,Sbi & Another

Kerala HC1 Jul 2009WP(C)/16475/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of W.P.(C). No. 16475 of 2009. The petitioner, a guarantor for a defaulter son, sought to stop coercive bank proceedings by offering reasonable monthly instalments. The court accepted this offer and stayed coercive action conditional on strict adherence, allowing the bank to resume proceedings upon any default.

What did the court decide?

Coercive proceedings to be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner clears the outstanding liability via prescribed monthly instalments; bank may resume proceedings upon default.

Idicula.P.I Vs the Authorised Offcer,Sbi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 16475 of 2009(D)

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

IDICULA P.I., MANGALATHU VEEDU, MUTHUKATTKKARA MURI, NOORANADU P.O.,

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

---------------------

¶13

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADOOR, BRANCH.

¶14

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, ADOOR BRANCH.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------

¶19

WP(C) NO. 16475 OF 2009

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2009

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner's son had availed a loan from the respondent Bank; for which the petitioner as well as his wife had stood as guarantors, creating equitable mortgage over the property in question. Subsequently, the son of the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, who is now stated as employed in the Gulf. The case of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondent Bank in proceeding with the coercive steps, when the petitioner has offered to clear the liability by way of reasonable monthly instalments.

¶23

With regard to the nature of liability, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit filed and the document produced as Ext.R1(a) submits that, as per the Scheme, the borrower was entitled to have the benefit of waiver of 25% of the due amount as notified by the Central Government, provided the remaining 75% was remitted by way of three instalments, the first of which was to be paid on or before the 30^th of September, 2008. Even though the position was very much conveyed to the parties as borne by Ext.R1(a), neither the borrower nor the guarantors did pay any heed to it and continued to be the defaulters for ever. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the period originally stipulated for clearing the

¶24

WPC NO.16475/2009 2

¶25

restricted liability of 75% of the due amount was extended further, permitting the defaulters to clear the same on or before the 30^th of June, 2009. The petitioner has chosen to remit only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and as such, is no more entitled to have the benefit of the Scheme.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that as on date, a total sum of about Rs.13,81,564.27 is due with future interest and cost. However, taking note of the statements made from the part of the petitioner, the outstanding liability is permitted to be cleared by way of eight equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30^th of this month, to followed by similar instalments on or before the 30^th of the succeeding months, under which circumstance, the coercive proceedings now stated as being pursued will be kept in kept in abeyance. If any default is committed from the part of the petitioner in effecting the instalments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps from the stage where it stands now, for realisation of the entire dues in a lump sum.

¶27

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

dnc

Idicula.P.I v. the Authorised Offcer,Sbi & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idicula.P.I v. the Authorised Offcer,Sbi & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Rto

M.P.Thomas Vs the General Manager

V.P.Mohammed Sherif Vs the Intelligence Officer

Jose Maveli Vs Union of India

Maxim K.Baby Vs the General Manager

P.Premkumar Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.