Disposed

Abdul Jaleel P.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Aug 2014WP(C)/16656/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a vehicle borrower facing recovery proceedings after an accident rendered his vehicle unroadworthy. The Court directed the petitioner to remit interest in two installments and directed the bank to restructure the loan, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance during this period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit interest in two installments by 18.09.2014 and 18.10.2014. Revenue recovery proceedings kept in abeyance and loan to be restructured pending payment.

Abdul Jaleel P.K Vs the State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/27TH SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 16656 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

ABDUL JALEEL P.K., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MOYIN, PUTHUKKOLLI KPOZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJERI, NELLIKKUTTU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 122.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, MALAPPURAM COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM-675 001.

¶15

3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, ERANADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-675 001.

¶16

4. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK, DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, NAICKANAL, THRISSUR – 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶17

5. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶18

THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK, ZONAL OFFICE,

¶19

DHANALAKSHMI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR – 680 002.

¶20

R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BANK BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.LONACHAN.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

rvs/

¶23

WP(C).No. 16656 of 2014 (F)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIO -------	NER(S)' EXHIB -------------	ITS ---	:
EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE REPAY	COPY MENT	OF THE LOAN SANCTIONING LETTER ALONG SCHEDULE DATED 2-11-2011.	WITH THE
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE MADHY	COPY AMAM	OF THE D PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 14-0 DAILY.	2-2013 IN
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE	COPY	OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS(TWO NOS).
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE	COPY	OF THE DEMAND NOTCE DATED 3-05-2014.
EXHIBIT	P4(A) TRUE	COPY	OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 3-05-2014.
RESPOND -------	ENT(S)' EXHIB -------------	ITS: ---
EXHIBIT	R4(A) TRUE 02/07	COP /2008	Y OF R4 BANK CIRCULAR NO.ADV/15/2008- .	09 DATED
EXHIBIT	R4(B) TRUE	COPY	OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CIRCULAR.

/true copy/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs/

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶30

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 16656 of 2014

¶31

- - - - Dated 18^th August, 2014

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is a person who availed of a vehicle loan and purchased a goods vehicle from the 4^th respondent Bank. The vehicle met with an accident on 19.06.2014 and from then, it has been garaged for repairs. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, that the vehicle would be roadworthy within 15 days from today. However, default was committed in the loan account and even the interest having not been paid, the Bank as per the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines, declared the loan to be a Non Performing Asset and proceeded for recovery from the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner contends that he is unable

¶36

to settle the loan since the vehicle itself is not roadworthy and his livelihood depends solely

¶37

WP(C).16656/14

¶38

¶39

on the vehicle. The petitioner had raised a contention that the Bank could not have proceeded against the petitioner under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 since the loan availed is not under the priority sector. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank has clearly stated in the statement filed that the loan is under the priority Sector, and the Bank is entitled to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act would not be maintainable, has to be rejected.

¶40

However, considering the peculiar

¶41

circumstances of the case as also the impecunious circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall remit the interest due in the loan account in two monthly instalments; on 18.09.2014 and

¶42

WP(C).16656/14

¶43

¶44

18.10.2014. Bank shall issue a statement showing the interest due in the account within a period of two weeks from today. On such payment being made as directed above, the revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and the 4^th respondent Bank shall also re-structure the loan

¶45

so as to permit the petitioner to pay off the balance arrears in future equated monthly instalments. If the petitioner does not comply with the above direction, the Bank shall be entitled to revive the recovery proceedings and proceed against the petitioner.

¶46

The writ petition shall stand disposed of.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge

¶49

Mrcs

¶50

//True Copy//

Abdul Jaleel P.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jaleel P.K v. the State of Kerala

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

Martin Mathew Vs the Deputy Tahsildar Revenue Recovery

Janamma Thomas Vs State of Kerala

P.Sivababu Vs Secretaray to the Government

P.S.Sarvanath Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Jerome, S/O.Augustine Vs the Authorized Office, Coastal Urban Co-

Varghese Antony Vs the Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Limited