Partly allowed

Jeevan Das v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016WP(C)/5086/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a defaulting borrower, challenged SARFAESI recovery proceedings seeking to remit dues in installments due to financial hardship. The Court stayed recovery proceedings on the condition of timely monthly installment payments and directed the bank to furnish an updated statement of dues within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed pending payment of Rs.23,04,785/- plus interest in 12 monthly installments; bank directed to provide updated dues statement within 10 days.

Jeevan Das Vs the Authorized 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5086 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JEEVAN DAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, BEACH WARD, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, KALARKODE, ALAPPUZHA-688 026.

¶11

2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUNNAPRA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA-688 123, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC.

¶13

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

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 5086 of 2016 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.12.2015 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No.5086 of 2016

¶27

- - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of March 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner, who had availed a cash credit 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.P2 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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(c).No.5086 of 2016

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

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

¶35

(i) The total outstanding amount, in respect of the cash credit facility as on 12.02.2016, is stated to be Rs.23,04,785/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.23,04,785/- together with accrued interest from 12.02.2016 in twelve equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 21.03.2016, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

sm/

Jeevan Das v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevan Das v. the Authorized 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

Valliyammakutty Vs Gayathri Nathan

Dr. J. Harikrishna Pillai Vs Dr. a. Nalinakshan

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs M/S Orma Granite Centre

Mohamed Rafi Vs the Authorised Officer,Thrissur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

N.C. Gardens & Beach Resort Vs Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal

Mararikulam Service Co-Op Bank Limited Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax