Disposed

V.G.Unnikrishnan v. the Manager, State Bank of India & Anr.

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010WP(C)/33559/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act. Recognising the petitioner's willingness to relinquish statutory challenges, the Court permitted account regularisation via instalment payments, stayed dispossession, but precluded subsequent challenges.

What did the court decide?

Coercive steps stayed conditionally; petitioner directed to regularise account via equal monthly instalments to continue future payments as per original schedule.

V.G.Unnikrishnan Vs the Manager, State Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 33559 of 2010(T)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

V.G.UNNIKRISHNAN,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPALAN,VALIPARAMNIL HOUSE KUZHIMBRAM P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121.

¶14

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC. FOR SBI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

svs

¶18

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------WP(C) NO. 33559 OF 2010

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenge in this Writ Petition is against coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequent to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank, immovable property, which is the secured asset, was proceeded against. Invoking provisions under Section 14(1), the respondents have approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by that Court.

¶22

According to the petitioner the loan in question

¶23

was availed only in the year 2009 and the repayment period is for five years. It is stated that, inspite of approach made seeking permission for regularising the

¶24

¶25

WP(C) No. 33559/2010

¶26

account, the Bank is proceeding with coercive steps without acceding to such request. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court.

¶27

It is noticed that the petitioner has not challenged any of the steps initiated under the SARFAESI Act by invoking remedy provided under Section 17(1). Under such circumstances, it is not proper and justified for this Court to interfere with the proceedings.

¶28

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against proceedings and that he is not intending to pursue any of the statutory remedies. On the other hand, the limited prayer is to permit regularisation of the account by offering payment of the defaulted amounts.

¶29

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that an amount of Rs.33 lakhs was availed in the year 2009 and there is chronic default in payment of monthly instalments on a regular basis.

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No. 33559/2010

¶32

Therefore, the loan account was treated as 'NPA' and further proceedings were initiated. Considering the conduct of the petitioner the Bank is not favouring regularisation of the account.

¶33

As a gesture of indulgence, this Court had issued an interim stay against dispossession of the petitioner subject to imposing condition for payment of Rs.5 lakhs. It is reported that the petitioner had complied with the condition. Learned standing counsel submits that after crediting payments made there will be further default of about Rs.3 lakhs due.

¶34

Considering the fact that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceeding initiated under SARFAESI Act, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise account.

¶35

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property,

¶36

¶37

WP(C) No. 33559/2010

¶38

subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts in default (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 15.01.2011 and on or before the 15^th day of the three succeeding months. The petitioner shall also make payment of the regular instalments due for the respective months, along with such payments.

¶39

If payment of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, then the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with original schedule of repayment.

¶40

It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the proceedings now initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is also made clear that the relief granted above is subject to condition that the petitioner is

¶41

¶42

WP(C) No. 33559/2010

¶43

precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against

¶44

such proceedings.

¶45

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶46

dnc

V.G.Unnikrishnan v. the Manager, State Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.Unnikrishnan v. the Manager, State Bank of India & Anr.

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

M/S.J & J Timbers,Chalakkudy Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Jose K.Thomas Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Ramesh C.P. Vs Rto,Malappuram

Mary Joseph Vs the District Collector

M/S.Navin Oil Industries Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Harijan Vanitha Kaitharal Naithu Vs Industrial Tribunal