Allowed

Suresh Kumar G. v. Union Bank,Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

Kerala HC23 Dec 2011WP(C)/35076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings under the Securitisation Act, the Court allowed the petitioner to regularise the account. It directed the bank to provide this opportunity if the petitioner pays stipulated amounts in instalments. Further proceedings would remain in abeyance upon compliance, barring future defaults.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to regularise account by paying defaulted amounts in two equal monthly instalments plus future instalments per original agreement.

Suresh Kumar G. Vs Union Bank,Rep.by Its Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 35076 of 2011(H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

MR. SURESH KUMAR.G., 46 YEARS, S/O. ACHARY, KALLELUVILA VEEDU, POOVATHHOOR WEST, MAVADI.P.O, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J. SAM.

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK LTD., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶14

BY SRI. A.S.P. KURUP, S.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).NO.35076/2011-H:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:-

¶19

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/11/11 UNDER THE SECURITIZATION ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.35076 of 2011

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 23^rd day of December, 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation

¶30

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondent for recovery of loan amounts defaulted by the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. The petitioner only seeks opportunity to regularise the loan account by paying the defaulted amounts and to pay the future instalments as per the original loan agreement.

¶31

This is opposed by the learned counsel for the bank.

¶32

However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ

¶33

petition with the following directions:

¶34

If the petitioner pays the amounts stipulated by the bank for regularising the loan account in two equal monthly instalments along with regular instalments payable in accordance with the original loan agreement for January and February, 2012, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to regularise the loan account and to pay off the future instalments as per the original loan agreement. If the petitioner complies with the above directions and continues to pay the future

¶35

W.P.(C)No.35076 of 2011

¶36

-2-

¶37

instalments as per the original loan agreement on the due dates without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner commits default in payment of either the defaulted amounts or any of the future instalments as per the loan agreement, it would be open to the respondent to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

shg/

Suresh Kumar G. v. Union Bank,Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar G. v. Union Bank,Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

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

Johny Paul Vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Basheer Vs Chief Secretary

K.Mahamood Vs the Mattool Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

K.S. Gopi Vs State

M.Naveenkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.R. Hari Vs Chief Manager