Partly allowed

Joy Daniel v. Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors.

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010WP(C)/7922/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings. Court allows petitioner to clear loan dues via instalments, orders deposit of Rs.3 lakh immediately, and stays recovery proceedings subject to compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- immediately; balance to be cleared in five equal monthly instalments. Recovery proceedings stayed.

Joy Daniel Vs Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 7922 of 2010(M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

JOY DANIEL, PROPRIETOR, `JOY LIGHTS', DOOR NO.10/1330, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (SARGAESI ACT), ZONAL OFFICE, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR.

¶13

DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR.

¶14

CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR, CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY MANAGER.

¶15

STANDING COUNSEL SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶18

¶19

WP(C) No. 7922 of 2010

¶20

Dated, this the 19^th day of March, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in March, 2007, creating security interest over the property in question. However, the petitioner was not agreed to satisfy the monthly instalments; under which circumstance, the Bank declared the account as NPA and proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions

¶24

that a total sum of Rs.16,82,803/- is due from the petitioner as in February 2010 for wiping off the liability under the loan transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earnest arrangements are being made to clear the liability and that he might be given some breathing time by way of reasonable instalments if the question of regularization is not possible.

¶25

Taking note of the contention raised from the part of the Bank that the question of regularization is not liable to be entertained; this Court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to clear the entire

¶26

WP(C) No.7922/2010

¶27

¶28

liability by way of reasonable instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before the 31^st of this month and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of ‘five’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30^th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum.

¶29

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the alternate remedy available under the statute by approaching the DRT and that the petitioner does not want to press any of the contentions with regard to the steps taken by the respondent Board under the SARFAESI Act is recorded.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶32

dnc

Joy Daniel v. Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Daniel v. Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors.

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

M.K.Balakrishnan Vs Susan Jacob

Lissy Jacob Vs Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and

Venu K.Nair Vs Rto, Pathanamthitta and 3 Others

Rajeev.R. Vs Federal Bank

P.Sankaranarayanan Nair Vs District Collector and Others

M/S.Gnanam Enterprises Vs the Intelligence Officer & Others