Disposed

Liju.P.Reji v. Union of India

Kerala HC23 May 2011WP(C)/1017/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's plea for directing the bank to restructure the loan or waive interest under Article 226 but permitted repayment in 12 monthly installments pending the bank's consideration of restructuring.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to pay dues in 12 monthly equal instalments. Pursued in case of default. Allowed to approach bank separately for restructuring.

Liju.P.Reji Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1017 of 2010(B)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

LIJU P.REJI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.REJI, PROPRIETOR, POOVANMALA REENA FUELS, ELAVUMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW-DELHI.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

4. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

5. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.1017/2010-B:

¶20

7. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶21

8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G, R2, R6 TO R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU, R3 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.V.J.ANAND.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 1016 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/05/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C). NO.1017/2010-B:

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 26/11/2003.

¶28

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS PAPER DTD. 07/10/2009.

¶29

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS PAPER DTD. 05/10/2009.

¶30

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS PAPER DTD. 31/05/2009.

¶31

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SALE DETAILS.

¶32

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NORMS NO.R2/NH-33023/19/99-DO-III DTD. 17/10/2003.

¶33

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/12/2009.

¶34

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. DECEMBER 2009.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

------------------------------OP(DRT).NO. 1017 of 2010 ---------------------------------

¶41

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The husband of the petitioner who had availed a loan from respondents 1 and 2 during the year 2002, for purchase of a Fishing Boat and Fishing Net, to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, died on 11.9.2007, after prolonged treatment at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, huge amounts were spent for treatment of her deceased husband, which eventually had resulted in default in repayment in the loan account. Respondents 1 and 2 had initiated steps under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). It is stated that the petitioner is eking livelihood by vending fish and that she was not in a position to make payment of the amounts under demand. However when coercive steps as contemplated under section 13(4) was initiated the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing SA.No.447/2010, invoking section 17(1). Eventhough a

¶44

WP(C) .1017/2010 2

¶45

conditional stay was granted as per Ext.P8 insisting payment of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, in two instalaments, the petitioner could not comply with the condition, because of her stringent financial condition. When respondents 1 and 2 had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court invoking section 14(1) and when steps were threatened for eviction of the petitioner from her dwelling house, the above writ petition is filed as a last resort.

¶46

Eventhough,, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Debt Recovery Tribunal this court was not inclined, indulgence was shown in staying the dispossession on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner will withdraw the proceedings before the DRT. An interim stay was granted on 7.12.2010 restraining dispossession subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.75,000/- on or before 31.12.2010. It is reported that the stipulation has already been complie3d with.

¶47

Heard; counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that after crediting all the payments made, balance outstanding is around Rs.4,50,000/- . According to the petitioner, the prevailing financial condition will not permit her to make payment of the amount within any reasonable time.

¶48

WP(C) .1017/2010 3

¶49

Therefore the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this court in directing the respondent Bank for permitting restructuring of the loan or on the alternative in waiving interest/penal interest and expenses, considering the special circumstances.

¶50

I am afraid that I could not grant any such relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However it is made clear that it will be left open to the petitioner to approach respondents 1 and 2 seeking reliefs as stated above, and if any such approach is made the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same taking note of the peculiar circumstances and situation prevailing, and a decision thereon shall be intimated to the petitioner.

¶51

As an equitable relief, considering the above mentioned circumstances, pending finalisation of the decision on the above said aspects, the petitioner is permitted to make payment of the amounts due in a phased manner of 12 (twelve) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 15.2.2011 and on or before the 15^th day of the succeeding months.

¶52

Needless to say that such payments will be subject to the decisions which will be taken by the respondent Bank on the basis of approach if any made by the petitioner as directed

¶53

WP(C) .1017/2010 4

¶54

above.

¶55

It is made clear that on the event of default if any committed by the petitioner in payment of the amount as stipulated above or in default of payment of the amount if any settled on the basis of an approach made before the respondents, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps pursuant to notices already issued and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings .

¶56

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶57

pmn/

¶58

WP(C) .1017/2010 5

Liju.P.Reji v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju.P.Reji v. Union of India

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

K.S.Mohammed Sameer Vs Commercial Tax Officer

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala Vs the Asst.Commissioner(Appeals)& Another

M/S.Metro Infrasys Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mary Ulahannan Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Dr.v.Viswanath Vs the Kerala Dental Council

Trooson Vs the R.D.O., Trichur & Others