Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar T v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016WP(C)/2523/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where a loan defaulting petitioner sought to remit dues in installments. The court directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount via eight monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay outstanding loan amount in eight equal monthly installments; recovery proceedings suspended pending compliance.

Sunil Kumar T Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2523 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR T, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. UNNICHUNDAN, THUVAKADAN HOUSE, PAYANAD P.O., AMBALAPADI, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 122.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶9

SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) SRI. JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 2523 of 2016 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.78/2009 DTD.4.1.2011 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MANJERI.

¶19

P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, DTD.25.3.2013.

¶20

P3 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD.21.12.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).NO.2523 OF 2016 (M)

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, who had availed of 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.P3 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 for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the respondent bank in easy installments. Taking into

¶33

W.P.(C).No.2523/2016

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

(i) The total amount outstanding from the petitioner to the respondent bank, as on 5.3.2016, is stated to be Rs.4,42,776/- together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the above amount of Rs.4,42,776/- together with accrued interest from 5.3.2016 in eight equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 23.3.2016, then the further proceedings initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶37

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

¶38

(iii) The respondent bank shall furnish the petitioner with an up-to-date statement of the dues position together with interest within ten days from today so as to enable the petitioner to discharge his liability in accordance with the directions in this judgment.

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

prp/8/3/16

Sunil Kumar T v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar T v. 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

Rison K.K Vs the Manager Kerala Gramin Bank

M/S. Annai Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Mohammad Madani Vs the Tahsildar

Vincent T.D Vs the Authorised Officer

Shaju Vs Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Joseph Varkey, Vs the Branch Manager