Partly allowed

Lalil L. v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC29 Jan 2016WP(C)/2095/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a loan defaulter seeking respite from recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The court granted conditional relief allowing installment payment of the overdue amount to suspend recovery steps.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance if petitioner pays Rs.3,28,000 plus interest in 12 monthly installments commencing 10.02.2016; bank to provide updated account statement within 10 days.

Lalil L. Vs the Authorised Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2095 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

LALI L. AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.KARUNAKARAN, AKASH NIVAS, JAWAHAR COLONY, PAZHAGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE FORT, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER-695 001.

¶13

BY SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 2095 of 2016 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

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

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ON 28.9.2015 UNDER SECTION OF SECRUITIZATION ACT 2002.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 2095 of 2016

¶28

===================================================== Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner, who had availed a loan from the respondent bank, defaulted in repayment of the same. Consequently, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act', to recover the loan amounts. Ext.P1 is the possession notice issued to the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

¶33

case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer of the petitioner is to permit her to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the bank in easy installments. Taking into

¶34

-2-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 2095 of 2016

¶36

account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶37

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loan, is stated to be Rs.3,28,000/- together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,28,000/- together with accrued interest in twelve equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 10.02.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installments as per the original loan schedule, then the recovery steps initiated against her by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶38

(ii) It is made clear that if the petitioner commits a default in respect of any of the installments, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against her from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶39

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days from today, provide the petitioner with an upto-date statement of accounts so as to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in accordance with the directions of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶42

das /29.01.2016

Lalil L. v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalil L. v. the Authorised 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

Antony V.K. Vs State Bank of Travancore

Abdul Majeed Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Rukiya U.K. Vs the State Bank of India

Zaurabi Vs the Kasaragod District

K.T.Binu Vs the Authorised Officer

Joseph Vs the District Collector