Partly allowed

K.N.Harikumar v. the Authorized Officer Kottayam Co-Op.Urban Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC22 Mar 2016WP(C)/4022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging bank recovery action under the SARFAESI Act for overdraft default, the Court stayed recovery proceedings conditionally. The petitioner must pay the outstanding principal and interest in three monthly installments starting April 4, 2016, and comply with renewal formalities; otherwise, proceedings resume.

What did the court decide?

Recovery steps kept in abeyance if petitioner pays Rs.2,35,000/- plus interest in three monthly installments from 04.04.2016 and complies with renewal formalities; upon any default, proceedings resume

K.N.Harikumar Vs the Authorized Officer Kottayam… — 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 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4022 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.N.HARIKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KURUPPANKUNNEL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO.421, H.O.THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶12

BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE,SC,

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 4022 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.13 (2)(1) OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002, DATED 2.12.2015.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.4022 of 2016

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of March 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner, who had availed an overdraft facility 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 notice issued to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶29

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

¶30

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 bank in easy installments. Taking into

¶31

W.P.(c).No.4022 of 2016

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the overdraft facility as on today, is stated to be Rs.2,35,000/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,35,000/- together with accrued interest in three equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 04.04.2016, and complies with the formalities insisted by the respondent bank for renewal of the overdraft facility, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶35

(ii) It is 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.

¶36

(iii)The respondent bank shall furnish the petitioner with an up-to-date statement of the dues position, within 10 days from today, so as to enable the petitioner to effect repayment as per the directions in this judgment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

sm/

K.N.Harikumar v. the Authorized Officer Kottayam Co-Op.Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Harikumar v. the Authorized Officer Kottayam Co-Op.Urban Bank Ltd.

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

M.Harris Vs State Bank of Travancore

The Kidangoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Sreevidya.K Vs Kerala Gramin Bank

Kumari Manoharan Vs Authorised Officer, Sbt, Piravom

Rajalekshmi Vs Authorised Officer

Joseph J Kuttikkattu Vs Uco Bank