Disposed

Treesamma Raju v. the Reserve Bank of India

Kerala HC8 Dec 2010WP(C)/31489/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a debtor requesting full waiver of a bank loan under a government scheme. Although waived the petition on merits due to the scheme's expiration, the Court directed the Reserve Bank of India to stay coercive recovery actions pending payment of the entire dues via ten monthly instalments by December 31, 2010.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Reserve Bank of India to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery pending payment of the entire amount due with interest and expenses in ten monthly instalments.

Treesamma Raju Vs the Reserve Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31489 of 2010(I)

¶4

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

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

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

¶7

TREESAMMA RAJU, AGED 45, W/O.VARGHESE RAJU, AARATHI VILLA, KANJIRAKODE, KUNDARA.P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

3. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., P.B.NO.18, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA BRANCH, KUNDARA-691 501, KOLLAM.

¶14

4. THE NODAL OFFICER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA-683 101.

¶15

R3-4 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) SC. SRI.P.R.MILTON

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J

¶19

WP(C) NO. 31489 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner is a house wife who had availed a loan from the 3^rd respondent Bank for starting a cattle farm, under the Central Government sponsors scheme of Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojna (PMRY). It is stated that due to adverse climatic conditions the cattle were affected with diseases and consequently the business failed putting the petitioner to heavy loss. Exts.P1 to P3 certificates produced by Veterinary Surgeon, Gramapanchayat, and Village Officer were produced in order to prove the above said facts.

¶23

According to the petitioner the loan in question was liable to be waived in full as per provisions of the 'Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008,' formulated by the Central Government. But complaint of

¶24

the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent Bank had permitted only waiver of 25%, as evidenced from Ext.P4

¶25

¶26

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶27

communication. The above said scheme is produced as Ext.R3(d) along with a statement filed by the 3^rd respondent Bank. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she is a “marginal farmer' as defined under Clause 3.5 of the above scheme and that the loan in question availed is for agricultural purposes and therefore the petitioner is entitled for full waiver of the loan account.

¶28

The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 4^th respondent, the Nodal Officer of the 3^rd respondent Bank. Since such representation was not considered she had approached the banking Ombudsman and in Ext.P7 letter the petitioner was informed that the compliant was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager of the Rural Planning and Credit Department, Reserve Bank of India. Subsequently the petitioner received Ext.P8 communication from the Reserve bank of India to the effect that the complaint in question had already been forwarded to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, for taking appropriate action.

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶31

Meanwhile, at the behest of the 3^rd respondent, revenue recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P9 demand notice was issued by the 2^nd respondent. Even though the petitioner had approached the respondent Bank requesting to keep in abeyance the coercive actions, in Ext.P11 reply the 2^nd respondent had informed that unless specific orders are received from the 3^rd respondent Bank, recovery steps could not be hold on. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this Court seeking direction to quash the recovery steps on the premise that the petitioner is entitled for a full waiver of loan as per the scheme formulated by the Central Government.

¶32

In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 it is mentioned that the petitioner is entitled for a net relief to the extent of 25% as contemplated under Ext.R3(d). It is stated that the petitioner was informed in this regard and was requested to make payment of the balance amount of 75%, within the date stipulated therein, through Ext.P4.

¶33

¶34

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶35

It is further mentioned that since the petitioner failed to comply with this request, repeated demands were issued requesting him to make payment of the amount within the time stipulated. It is contended that the petitioner is eligible only for 25% waiver of the amounts since the purpose of the loan is for conducting dairy farm which will come only within the “investment credit for allied activities” as defined under the scheme in question.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the various clauses in Ext.R3(d). Referring to clause 3.1 and referring to clause 3.3, attempts were made to distinguish that the loan in question and to content that it will come within the category of 'direct agricultural loans' and not within the category of investment credits mentioned in clause 3.3. On a perusal of clause 3.3 (b) it is clear that the loan availed for a dairy farm will fall within the specified category of “investment credit for allied activities” mentioned therein, which will come only within the purview

¶37

¶38

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶39

of 'investment loans' specified under clause 3.3. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for waiver only to the extent of 25%.

¶40

However, it is evident from the statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that the periods stipulated for availing benefit under the scheme was till 30.06.2010 and since the period is now over the petitioner could not be provided with any benefits under the scheme in question. Under such circumstances I am of the view that contentions

¶41

raised in the Writ Petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay off the arrears in a lump sum, due to acute financial stringency faced by her. Therefore she seeks indulgence of this Court in permitting payment of the liability in easy instalments, within a reasonable time.

¶43

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I

¶44

¶45

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶46

am of the view that even though interference on merits is not proper the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability in instalments within a reasonable period.

¶47

Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P9 notices, provided the petitioner remits the entire amount due along with interest and expenses if any due, in 10(ten) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months.

¶48

It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach respondents 3 and 4 seeking waiver of interest/penal interest and expenses to the possible extent or for regularization of the loan account on remitting defaulted instalment, and if any such approach is made the said respondents shall consider the same and take a decision. It is also left open to the petitioner to avail benefit

¶49

¶50

WP(C) No. 31489/2010

¶51

of schemes regarding Debt Relief if any formulated in future.

¶52

It is further made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge.

¶53

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶54

dnc

Treesamma Raju v. the Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Treesamma Raju v. the Reserve Bank of India

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

Latheefa Beevi Vs the Chairman,Tvm Committee,Kerala Headlo

Sindu P.P. Vs Icici Bank

Shahul Hameed Vs State Bank of Travancore, Kuthiyathode

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidya Samajam

Zora Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

K.T.Joseph @Josy Thomas Vs the Union Bank of India and Another