Partly allowed

Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Kollam District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC9 Mar 2016WP(C)/5092/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a loan defaulter against a cooperative bank invoking the SARFAESI Act. The court granted relief allowing repayment of the outstanding dues in ten monthly installments, keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance pending compliance. Default would restore prior recovery measures.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed; petitioner ordered to pay outstanding dues of Rs.1,95,000 plus interest in ten equal monthly installments starting 23.3.2016.

Thomas Vs the Authorised Officer, Kollam… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/19TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5092 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THOMAS,

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, AMBUKUNNIL VEEDU, ELAVAKKODU CHAAYAMANGALAM (PO), KOTTARAKARA TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶12

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 608.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

...2/-

¶17

WP(C).No. 5092 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶20

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

¶21

EXT. P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DT. 1-2-2016 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).NO.5092 OF 2016 (J)

¶28

Dated this the 9^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.P1 is the auction sale notice published at the instance of the respondents. 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.5092/2016

¶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, is stated to be Rs.1,95,000/together with accrued interest. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the above amount of Rs.1,95,000/together with accrued interest in ten 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/9/3/16

Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Kollam District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas v. the Authorised Officer, Kollam District Co-Op. 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

Vincent T.D Vs the Authorised Officer

Sunil Kumar T Vs Authorised Officer

Shaju Vs Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Jenin Daniel Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Mohankumar.S Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.