Disposed

Sree Vishnu.S v. Reserve Bank of India and Others

Kerala HC7 Feb 2013WP(C)/35269/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court heard a writ petition by a medical graduate against a bank challenging SARFAESI recovery proceedings. Noting the petitioner's status as a fresh graduate and pending interim stay, the Court directed the bank to fix a reasonable EMI considering repayment capacity. The interim stay was extended for two months.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of stay of recovery is extended for two months. The bank is directed to verify accounts and fix a reasonable EMI based on the petitioner's paying capacity.

Sree Vishnu.S Vs Reserve Bank of India and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 35269 of 2008 (W)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.961/2008 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SREE VISHNU.S., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.DR.S.S.SUBRAMANIAN, THOPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE, X/1547, PATTALAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.VENKATESH KAMATH SRI.ADITYA SHENOY.A.G.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, RURAL PLANNING & CREDIT DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, 13TH FLOOR, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001.

¶12

2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALUVA AND BRANCHES AT SEVERAL PLACES, INCLUDING ONE AT M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER), FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, BRANCH: THRISSUR, M.O.ROAD THRISSUR - 682 001.

¶14

R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶15

SMT.P.V.PARVATHI

¶16

SMT.REENA THOMAS

¶17

SRI.L.RAM MOHAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

WPC.NO.35269/2008 W

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF PROVISIONAL M.B.B.S. DEGREE CERTIFICATE DTD.30/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, AMRITHA VISWA VIDYAPEETHAM UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P2: CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE - COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 4/09/2008 TO THE PETITIONER WITH REGISTER NO.38223.

¶25

P3: COPY OF PLAINT DTD. 10/07/2008 IN O.S.NO.961/2008 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS, BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶26

P4: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 4/11/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.961/2008 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶27

P5: COPY OF APPLICATION FORM FOR FEDERAL VIDYA LOAN ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P6: COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD. 15/07/2002 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P7: COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 20/01/2006 ISSUED BY ADV.HRISHIKESH.P., THRISSUR, ON BEHALF OF 2ND RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.

¶30

P8: COPY OF REPLY ISSUED TO ADV.HRISHIKESH.P., ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BY ADV.C.G.PRAMOD ON 25/02/2006.

¶31

P9: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 25/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

P10: COPY OF EDUCATIONAL LOAN SCHEME CIRCULATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P11: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 4/10/2010 RENDERED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR, IN O.S.NO.961 OF 2008.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

R2(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FEDERAL VIDYA LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶36

R2(B): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO THE LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶37

R2(C): COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 15/03/2004.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶42

W.P(C).No.35269 of 2008

¶43

¶44

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2013

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶47

2.The petitioner is a medical graduate. For the purpose of studies, he availed of an educational loan of `5,00,000/- from the second respondent on 15.7.2002. The loan was granted on the basis of a scheme framed by the bank itself. As per the scheme, the petitioner was to service interest liability before commencing repayment of the principal. Default was committed and the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings. It is challenging those proceedings, this writ petition was filed.

¶48

3.When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner being a fresh graduate, if recovery proceedings are allowed to continue at that stage, his career prospects are likely to be affected, despite the availability of alternate remedy before the Debts

¶49

WPC.35269/08

¶50

¶51

Recovery Tribunal, granted an order of stay of recovery. That order continues even today.

¶52

4.The main case of the petitioner is that the scheme under which the loan has been sanctioned is inconsistent with the scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India. However, nothing has been shown to me to hold that the second respondent bank could not have had its own scheme even during the currency of a scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India. If that be so, the petitioner could not avoid the liability of paying the dues of the bank as per the loan agreement. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the petitioner.

¶53

5.However, taking note of the fact that writ petition was pending before this Court from 2008 with an interim order and that the liability would have, by now, become substantial, it is necessary that the bank should fix a reasonable EMI in order to enable the petitioner to make repayments. Therefore, I

¶54

WPC.35269/08

¶55

¶56

direct that the petitioner shall approach the third respondent along with a copy of this judgment. The third respondent shall, thereupon, verify the account and fix a reasonable EMI, duly taking into account the paying capacity of the petitioner and the guarantors. In order to enable this exercise to be completed, I direct that the interim order granted by this Court will remain in force for another two months. The petitioner shall immediately produce a copy of this judgment before the third respondent as directed above.

¶57

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶58

kkb.7/2.

Sree Vishnu.S v. Reserve Bank of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Vishnu.S v. Reserve Bank of India and Others

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

Sarojini Ponnan P.V. Vs Ksfe Ltd.

Premkumar Vs the Sales Tax Officer

Syamala P.K. Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Vinodh.v. Vs the Manager, Federal Bank Limited

P.K.Abdul Latheef Vs State of Kerala

G.Biju and Another Vs the Authorized Officer