Allowed

Liju Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Kerala HC25 Mar 2009WP(C)/8046/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the recovery action initiated by the Kerala Financial Corporation against a defaulted loan petitioner. The Court extended a final opportunity to the petitioner to save the mortgaged property by depositing Rs. 20 lakhs within two months and clearing the balance in three equal monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs before 31/03/2009, Rs. 10 lakhs before 15/04/2009, and the balance in three monthly installments thereafter; default permits continuation of recovery proceeding

Liju Jose Vs Kerala Financial Corporation — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

W.P(C).No. 8046 of 2009(A)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

LIJU JOSE,AGED 39 YEARS,M.P.JOSE, MOONJALI HOUSE,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM(PROPRIETOR, M/S, ST.JOSEPH FOAMS, KOTTUVALLY, ERNAKULAM).

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,ERNAKULAM BRANCH K.F.C, FINANCE TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI.

¶16

ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, R1 TO 3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8046 OF 2009 (A)

¶19

=====================

¶20

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2009

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

In 2002, Petitioner had availed of two loans totalling Rs.36.17 lakhs from the respondents for setting up his industrial unit, M/s. St.Joseph Foam, Kottuvally, Ernakulam. Though the petitioner submits that he had made substantial payments, default was committed in the matter of repayment, ultimately leading to Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. At that stage, petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation for allowing payment in instalments. Complaining that there has not been any response, the writ petition is filed.

¶23

Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents point out that after availing of the loan of Rs.36.17 lakhs, so far the petitioner has paid only Rs.7.19 lakhs. It is stated that though loan was rescheduled in March 2005 to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability, petitioner did not honour the commitment and on the other hand, the unit itself was closed three years back and the machineries were unauthorisedly removed. It is also stated that as on 18/3/2009, the amount due from the petitioner is Rs.48.68 lakhs.

¶24

WPC 8046/09

¶25

:2 :

¶26

In so far as the request of the petitioner for the benefit of One Time Settlement is concerned, counsel for the respondents submit that the asset value of the mortgaged property is Rs.113.41 lakhs and that since it is much more than the total liability, the request cannot be considered. It is also pointed out that as at present, there is no scheme in vogue. Added to this, it is also pointed out that the petitioner himself had promised that before 10/3/2009, he will pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and that such payment also was not made. It is in these circumstances, Corporation was compelled to issue Ext.P4 for recovering its dues.

¶27

True, the petitioner is a confessed defaulter and the Corporation cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken. Counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner is genuinely interested in discharging the liability and therefore he be given a last opportunity to save the property from coercive action.

¶28

I heard the counsel for the respondents also on this request.

¶29

Having regard to the submissions made, I am inclined to think that yet another last opportunity should be extended to the petitioner so that if he bonafidely wants, let him save the

WPC 8046/09

:3 :

property mortgaged.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶34

(1) That before 31/03/2009, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) with the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

(2) That before 15/04/2009, the petitioner shall make a further payment of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only).

¶36

(3) The balance amount that is due from the petitioner will be paid by him in three equal monthly instalments payable on or before 15^th of May, June and July, 2009.

¶37

(4) It is clarified that if the petitioner commits default in paying any one of the instalments as above, the respondents will be free to continue proceedings that they have initiated by Ext.P4.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

Liju Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju Jose v. Kerala Financial Corporation

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

K.a.Jelton Vs the Superintending Engineer

Neena.P. Vs the Registrar

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba Vs the Passport Officer, Kochi and Another

Assainar.T.K. Vs State of Kerala

C. Beena Vs University of Calicut

Usha Anilkumar & Another Vs the District Collector & Others