Dismissed

Devasia Abraham v. the State Bank of India and Another

Kerala HC10 Nov 2011WP(C)/10410/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings regarding Kissan Credit Card loan. Court noted petitioner was not fully eligible for waiver due to loan limits but, considering circumstances, directed respondents to refrain from coercive recovery if balance is paid in six monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to refrain from coercive recovery if petitioner pays outstanding balance and interest in six equal monthly instalments starting 30.11.2011. Default renders this relief void.

Devasia Abraham Vs the State Bank of India and Another — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/19TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10410 of 2010 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DEVASIA ABRAHAM, PALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PERUVANTHANAM BRANCH,MUNDAKAYAM, EAST P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PHOENIX TOWERS, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM- 686 001.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶13

SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C)NO.10410/2010

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF'S SCHEME 2008

¶20

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/08/08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P4 NIL

¶23

P5 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12/04/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.10410 of 2010

¶31

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2011

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent as well as Ext.P3 recovery notice issued for realization of amounts due from the petitioner. The petitioner had availed a Kissan Credit Card loan from the respondent Bank for the purpose of agricultural operations. Dispute pertains to eligibility of the petitioner for waiver of amounts due under the loan account on the basis of Ext.P1 Debt Relief Scheme introduced by the Central Government. Since the petitioner’s name was not included in the eligibility list for granting benefits under Ext.P1 scheme, he had approached the 2^nd respondent, who is the grievance redressal authority under the scheme. Through Ext.P2 it is informed that, as clarified in Circular No.1/2008 dt.28.5.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for facilitating implementation of

¶34

W.P.(C).10410/10

¶35

-2-

¶36

Ext.P1 scheme, the short term production credit (working capital loan) for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture will be reckoned for waiver only upto the limit of Rs.1 lakh and the sum reckoned for waiver will only be the amount remaining overdue as on 31.12.2007. Hence it is informed that the principal amount outstanding beyond the limit of Rs.1 lakh cannot be considered for waiver.

¶37

According to the petitioner, the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent regarding the limit of sum of Rs.1 lakh, is against provisions contained in Ext.P1 scheme. Referring to clause 3.2 of Ext.P1 it is contended that short term production loan will include only loans repayable within a period of 18 months and will include loans beyond the limit of Rs.1 lakh if it is availed for traditional and nontraditional plantations or horticulture. It is further submitted that, since repayment period of the loan availed by the petitioner is not within 18 months, the stand taken by the 2^nd respondent that he is eligible for waiver only upto the limit of Rs.1 lakh is not sustainable.

¶38

W.P.(C).10410/10

¶39

-3-

¶40

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

¶41

respondents it is stated that Kissan Credit Card limit sanctioned to the petitioner is for Rs.5 lakhs and it is sanctioned for cultivation of Rubber, Pepper, Coffee, Cardamom, Vanila etc. It is further stated that the facility in question is a short term production credit (working capital) and that such credit for traditional and nontraditional plantations and horticulture is not entitled for total waiver under Ext.P1 scheme. In other words, contention of the respondents is that in view of the terms of scheme, which is clarified through the circular, the short term production credit availed by the petitioner is not eligible for waiver since it is beyond the limit of Rs.1 lakh.

¶42

Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for petitioner raised various contentions that the loan in question availed by the petitioner will not fall within the category for which a limit upto Rs.1 lakh is insisted, as contended by the respondents. He is mainly relying on the aspect that the repayment period prescribed for the credit

¶43

W.P.(C).10410/10

¶44

-4-

¶45

facility is not within 18 months. But he is not in a position to produce any material to show the specific terms of repayment and to show that it is beyond a period of 18 months. Referring to a clause in the form of application submitted, learned counsel contended that the petitioner is liable for payment of interest on the amount of credit on an yearly basis. Considering that no other material is available it can only be presumed that the credit facility is liable for renewal on an yearly basis. However, since the petitioner had failed to produce any material to show that the facility in question is liable for full waiver under the provisions of Ext.P1 scheme, I am not inclined to grant relief as sought for. It is conceded that the petitioner has already been sanctioned waiver to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and interest due thereon amounting to a total sum of Rs.1,18,667/-. Therefore, I am of the view that writ petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

Confronted with the above situation learned counsel made an appeal to this court to permit payment of

¶47

W.P.(C).10410/10

¶48

-5-

¶49

the outstanding balance in a phased manner within a short period. Considering the facts and circumstances I direct the respondents to refrain from any coercive steps of recovery, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance due along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due from 30.11.2011 onwards.

¶50

It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps and on such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings.

¶51

(Sd/-)

¶52

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶53

okb

¶54

True copy

¶55

P.A to Judge

Devasia Abraham v. the State Bank of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devasia Abraham v. the State Bank of India and Another

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

Joseph Kavalam Vs Reghunathan

P.K.Subodayan Vs Joint Registrar and Others

K.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala & Others

Chacko Joseph Vs N.Musthafa

Kuriachan George Vs Rajee & Ors.

Madhu.K.James Vs State of Kerala