Partly allowed

Paul Perinchery v. Union Bank of India

Kerala HC16 Mar 2010WP(C)/829/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the petitioner additional breathing time to clear the outstanding loan liability. The Bank agreed to accept Rs. 90 lakhs as full and final settlement. The petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs immediately with balance in four monthly installments pending four months, staying all further recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stayed all further recovery proceedings against the petitioner upon deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs by 31.03.2010 and payment of the balance of Rs. 70 lakhs in four equal monthly installments.

Paul Perinchery Vs Union 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 829 of 2010(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

PAUL PERINCHERY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI.J.P. PERINCHERY, RESIDING AT PERINCHERY HOUSE, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 016.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (CRLD), AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, CONVENT ROAD JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682 035.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI A.V.THOMAS, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 829 OF 2010

¶18

......................................................................... Dated this the 16^th March, 2010

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is in respect of

¶21

the steps taken by the respondent Bank to realise the due amount under a loan transaction resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act . Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, legal as well as factual. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was all along pursuing the steps to have the matter settled by satisfying the entire outstanding liability for a consolidated amount seeking for necessary concessions/allowances from the part of the Bank . It is also stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner had offered a sum of Rs.60 lakhs to be paid within 60 days, in March 2009, which was not acceptable to the Bank, whereby the offer was enhanced to Rs.70 lakhs.

¶22

In the course of the proceedings pending consideration

¶23

before this Court , taking note of the stand revealed from the part of the Bank that they were not amenable to have the

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 829 OF 2010

¶26

matter settled for the amount offered from the part of the petitioner, the offer was further enhanced to Rs. 80 lakhs. It is also the contention of the petitioner that it is never a question of bargaining, but the petitioner earnestly wants to have the matter settled and it is accordingly that, despite the adverse circumstances, the petitioner decided to manage things somehow or the other, by raising funds to wipe out the entire liability. Anyhow, the positive steps from the part of the petitioner are stated as not properly appreciated by the Bank.

¶27

However, after taking note of the actual facts and circumstances, the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank sought for further time to have the matter considered and accordingly, on the basis of the instruction received, submits that the Bank has agreed to have the matter settled on payment of Rs. 'Ninety lakhs' in full and final satisfaction of the due amount, subject to the condition that the entire amount is satisfied without delay.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs on or before 31.03.2010 to prove his bonafides and that the balance amount

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 829 OF 2010

¶31

might be permitted to be cleared by way of reasonable installments

¶32

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to provide some breathing time to the petitioner to clear the liability as above. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of 'Rs. Twenty lakhs' on or before 31.03.2010 and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of 'four' 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 this , all further recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance . It is also made clear that if the petitioner does not prove his words by his deeds in honouring the liability, the benefit granted by this verdict will stand automatically cancelled.

¶33

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶34

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶35

Paul Perinchery v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Perinchery v. Union 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

Satheesh Kumar Vs Indhukaladharan

Mukundan P.P. Vs District Collector

C.M.Noordeen and Others Vs Union Bank of India & Another

P.K. Poulose Vs the Sales Tax Officer

Antony Vs the Branch Manager, Sbt and Another

Sani P.V. Vs Staet Bank of Travancore