Allowed

Alice Vincent v. Mnager, State Bank of India

Kerala HC23 Mar 2010WP(C)/6870/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted petitioner to clear business loan liability via reasonable installments. Petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs by 31.03.2010 with balance in five equal monthly installments. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance subject to such compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs by 31.03.2010; balance in five equal monthly installments. Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance.

Alice Vincent Vs Mnager, State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / WPC CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6870 of 2010(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

ALICE VINCENT, W/O.CHIRAMMEL KUNJAVU VINCENT, NADATHARA ROAD, NELLIKUNNU, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

RESPONDENTS:

MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶15

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (RASMECCC) STATE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶16

BY ADV. MR. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd March, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner had availed a business loan of Rs. 40 lakhs

¶23

from the first respondent Bank in November 2006, creating security interest over the property in question which actually belongs to the petitioner as well as her deceased husband. Despite the commitment, the petitioner could not honour it, under which circumstances, the bank proceeded with further steps invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act, declaring the account of the petitioner as 'NPA', which hence is sought to be intercepted stating that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the liability provided some breathing time is given.

¶24

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on instruction submits that, maximum leniency had already been shown to the petitioner. It is submitted that different letters written by the petitioner seeking for sometime to clear the liability by way of installments were considered and granted. Though the position was communicated to the petitioner in September, 2009, the petitioner did not prove her

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

¶27

words by her deeds and she continued to be a defaulter. This being the position, the action being pursued by the Bank, being within the four walls of law, is not liable to be assailed under any circumstances, submits the learned Counsel.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after declaration of account of the petitioner as 'NPA' the petitioner has effected substantial payment including a sum of Rs. One lakh paid on 22.09.2009 and another sum of Rs.Five lakhs on 28.11.2009. It is stated that the petitioner has made earnest efforts to see that the liability is cleared within the shortest possible time by arranging necessary funds from different sources. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the proceedings of the respondent Bank availing the alternate remedy provided under the statute and the contentions raised in the Writ Petition are not intended to be pressed any further. The only relief now prayed for is to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a phased manner.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

¶32

that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability by way of reasonable installments . Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to deposit a sum of 'Rs. 10 lakhs' on or before 31.03.2010 and the balance shall be cleared by way of five equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 30.04.2010 to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30^th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all recovery proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further coercive steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 6870 OF 2010

¶48

Alice Vincent v. Mnager, State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alice Vincent v. Mnager, State 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

K.Sivanandan Vs Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Regiona

M/S.Farms India Chicken Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Hyder K.Moonniyoor Vs Kseb

M/S.Thankam Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Thaha T.S. by P.a.Holder Hafsath Vs State of Kerala

M.Krishnadas Vs the District Collector and Others