Disposed

T.S.Santhosh v. M/S.Tamil Nadu Mercantile

Kerala HC3 Apr 2013WP(C)/8284/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners who defaulted on a housing loan and faced SARFAESI action sought court permission to regularize their loan by paying arrears. The High Court of Kerala, recognizing the bank's right to recover dues, directed petitioners to clear defaults in two installments, deferred coercive action conditionally, and ordered loan regularization upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct petitioners to clear defaulted dues in two equal monthly installments along with current EMI; defer coercive action subject to compliance; direct bank to regularize loan upon payment.

T.S.Santhosh Vs M/S.Tamil Nadu Mercantile — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013/13TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 8284 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. T.S.SANTHOSH S/O MR. T.V. SASIDHARAN RESIDING AT THIRUMNILATH HOUSE NETTOOR P.O-682040 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. T.S. SUDHEER, AGED 30 YEARS S/O MR. T.V. SASIDHARAN RESIDING AT THIRUMNILATH HOUSE NETTOOR P.O-682040 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED

¶10

SRI.K.H.ASIF

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. M/S.TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD, COIMBATORE REGIONAL OFFICE, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶13

2. BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD, D.NO.64/3334-A CHITTOOR ROAD, NEXT TO SRI. SUDHEENDR HOSPITAL KACHERIPPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 035.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO.8284/12

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 26.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE BALANCE STTEMENT DATED 02.06.2010 & 11.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.11.2010 ISSUED by the 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P-3 NOTICE DATED 25.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 09.3.2012 BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8284 OF 2012

¶29

===================

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2013

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

In 2008, petitioners availed of a housing loan of `21,00,000/- from the respondent Bank. Although certain payments were made, they committed default, which resulted in the account being classified as NPA. On that basis, SARFAESI action was initiated and the possession of the asset also has been taken. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed and the petitioners request that they be permitted to pay the defaulted dues and on that basis the loan may be regularised.

¶34

Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank opposed the prayer of the petitioners pointing out the defaults committed by them and asserting their entitlement to continue the recovery action.

¶35

Although the competence of the Bank to continue recovery action cannot be doubted, in this writ petition, all that the petitioners seek is an opportunity to pay the amount that is

¶36

WPC.No.8284/13

¶37

:2 :

¶38

due to the bank towards the defaulted instalments and on that basis to get the loan regularised. In my view, if the petitioners clear the defaulted dues, there is no reason why the loan shall not be regularised.

¶39

Therefore, I direct that the petitioners shall clear the defaulted dues in 2 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 20/4/13 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 20/5/13. Along with the instalments, the current EMI should also be paid. If payments are made as above, the Bank will regularise the loan and allow the petitioners to pay the balance liability as per the loan agreement. Subject to payment as above, coercive action will stand deferred and in case of default, respondents will be free to continue with the recovery proceedings already initiated.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

T.S.Santhosh v. M/S.Tamil Nadu Mercantile

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Santhosh v. M/S.Tamil Nadu Mercantile

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

Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Usha Vinodan

Sajeevan Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Aminakutty Umma Vs Ottapalam Municipality and 2 Others

Abdul Majeed C.K. Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor

K.V. Sanathanan Vs the Tahsildar

Boban Antony and Another Vs Union of India & 2 Others