Allowed

K.T.Binu v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC29 Jan 2016WP(C)/401/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging SARFAESI recovery proceedings applied for installment payment due to hardship. High Court allowed remission of overdue amount in eight monthly installments, staying further recovery proceedings temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed if petitioner pays overdue amount of Rs. 2,55,000 plus interest in eight equal monthly installments commencing 15.02.2016.

K.T.Binu Vs the 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

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 401 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.T. BINU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, KOLICHIRA AZHOOR P.O., CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

FEDERAL BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, PIN- 695 001.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE

¶12

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

¶13

sts

¶14

WP(C).No. 401 of 2016 (A)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SECURITIZATION ACT 2002. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC NO.924/15 OF THE FILE OF CJM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC NO.924/15 OF THE FILE OF CJM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶24

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.401 Of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2016

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

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 notice issued by the Advocate commissioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank.

¶28

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note that the sole

¶29

-2-

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 401 of 2016

¶31

prayer of the petitioner is to permit him to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the respondent bank in easy installments. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶32

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner as on today is stated to be Rs.2,55,000/- together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs.2,55,000/- together with accrued interest in eight equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 15.02.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule, then the further proceedings initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶33

(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.

¶34

-3-

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 401 of 2016

¶36

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

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/29.01.16

K.T.Binu v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Binu 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

Statutes considered

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

Lalil L. Vs the Authorised Officer

Joseph Vs the District Collector