Partly allowed

Swaraj K.K. v. Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

Kerala HC4 Apr 2016WP(C)/6899/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner sought protection from recovery proceedings due to default on a loan. Considering the petitioner's plea of financial hardship, the High Court allowed a scheme to pay the outstanding amount in 10 monthly installments, staying further bank proceedings contingent on regular payments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to pay overdue amount with interest in 10 monthly installments; further bank proceedings stayed pending regular payments.

Swaraj K.K. Vs Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank… — 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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/15TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6899 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SWARAJ K.K.,

¶8

S/O.KUNUNNI, KUNNATH HOUSE, NOCHIMA, NAD P.O, KALAMASSERY, ALUVA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

ALUVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, CARMEL BUILDINGS, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. SRI.ANWAR SADATH VADAKENGARA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 6899 of 2016 (J)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 03/03/2014. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 19/13/15.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.6899 of 2016

¶25

............................................................. Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

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.P2 is the possession notice. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

-2-

¶31

W.P.(C). No.6899 of 2016

¶32

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:-

¶33

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner as on today is stated to be Rs.4,89,506/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the said amount of Rs.4,89,506/- together with accrued interest in 10 equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 20.04.2016, 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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(iii) The respondent bank shall, within ten days from today, provide the petitioner with an up-

¶36

-3-

¶37

W.P.(C). No.6899 of 2016

¶38

to-date statement of accounts so as to enable the petitioner to discharge the liability in accordance with the directions in this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

mns/4.4.16

Swaraj K.K. v. Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rep.by Its Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaraj K.K. v. Aluva Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rep.by Its 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

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries Vs State of Kerala

V.D.Joseph Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sreedevi Amma Vs Authorised Officer

Omana Vs Union Bank of India

Navab Wajid Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Baiju S.R. Vs Central Bank of India