Allowed

M.V Roy v. the State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016WP(C)/6965/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged steps taken by respondent bank to recover defaulted loan via SARFAESI Act. Court ordered bank to pause recovery proceedings if petitioner pays total overdue principal and accrued interest in 12 monthly installments, effective March 23, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance if petitioner pays total overdue amount of Rs.3,83,677 with accrued interest in 12 monthly installments commencing 23.03.2016.

M.V Roy Vs the State Bank of Travancore — 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

W.P(C).No. 6965 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.V ROY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. M.M.VARGHESE, MUTTATHUPARA, KULATHURPRAYAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MALLAPPALLY PATHANAMTHITTA-689 584.

¶11

2. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MALLAPPALLY PATHANAMTHITTA-689 584.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MALLAPPALLY-689 584.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER , VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT FOR R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.LILLY K.T. FOR R3 & R4

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PtK/C1

¶17

W.P(C).No. 6965 of 2016 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.

¶21

P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.AGMIV/KTM DTD.14.10.2015.

¶22

P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.RR/2015/9948/D5 DTD.8.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.16.12.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.36654/2015(F).

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY HE PETITIONER, DATED 07.01.2013.

¶26

R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 23.09.2011, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM.

¶27

R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 10.05.2012, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶28

R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 06.07.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONR BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶29

R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE DATED 17.10.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.

¶30

R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 23.01.2013.

¶31

R1(g): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GUARANTEE COVER UNDER THE CGTMSE SCHEME, DATED 23.01.2013, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶32

R1(h): TRUE COPY OF THE CGTMSE REGISTRATION FORM, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

¶33

R1(i): TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES (CGTMSE) SCHEME.

¶34

R1(j): TRUE COPY OF THE CGTMSE-NPA REPORTING, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE FURST TRUST.

¶35

R1(k): TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM DATED 12.10.2015, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE FUND TRUST.

¶36

R1(l): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RBI MASTER CIRCULAR NO.RBI/2014-15/573 FIDD.CO.PLAN. BC.54/04.09.01/2014-15, DATED 23.04.2015

// TRUE COPY //

P.S. TO JUDGE

PtK/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 6965 of 2016

¶42

===================================================== Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2016

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

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' as also the Revenue Recovery Act, to recover the loan amounts. Ext.P2 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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(C). No. 6965 of 2016

¶48

-2-

¶49

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

¶50

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the loan, is stated to be Rs.3,83,677/- as on 25.02.2016. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,83,677/- together with accrued interest to the respondent bank in twelve equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 23.03.2016, then the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶51

(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.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶55

das /10.03.2016

M.V Roy v. the State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V Roy v. the State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jenin Daniel Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

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

Ashalatha Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Shaji George Vs Authorised Officer

Saranya Balakrishnan Vs Manager