Disposed

Mrs.Saly Domanic v. Manager, Canara Bank

Kerala HC29 Feb 2016WP(C)/811/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged bank recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act for defaulted loans. Court permitted payment of outstanding cash credit amount in ten monthly installments to suspend immediate enforcement action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay total outstanding cash credit Rs. 22,66,042/- plus accrued interest in ten monthly installments starting 10.03.2016; recovery proceedings suspended.

Mrs.Saly Domanic Vs Manager, Canara Bank — 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

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 811 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MRS.SALY DOMANIC, W/O.DOMANIC KURIAN, PADINJAREKUTTU HOUSE, CHENGANOOR PO, MALLAPPALLY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

MANAGER, CANARA BANK, MALLAPPALLY - 677 001.

¶11

BY SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 811 of 2016 (B)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶17

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.535/2015 DT 8-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

¶18

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK DT 2-1-2016.

¶19

P3 : TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK DATED 18.2.2016.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.811 Of 2016

¶26

............................................................. Dated this the 29^th day of February, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner, who had availed of a cash credit facility, a housing loan and an education 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. 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

¶31

W.P.(C). No.811 of 2016

¶32

-2-

¶33

prayer of the petitioner is to permit her to remit the balance amounts outstanding to the 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:-

¶34

(i) The total amount outstanding under the cash credit facility is stated to be Rs.22,34,828/--. Similarly, the overdue amount in the housing loan is stated to be Rs.31,214/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner pays the total amount of Rs.22,66,042/- together with accrued interest in ten equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 10.03.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installments in the housing loan account and the education loan account, then further proceedings for recovery 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, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and the respondent bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings against her from the stage at which they presently stand.

¶36

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

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/29.02.16

¶39

W.P.(C). No.811 of 2016

¶40

-3-

Mrs.Saly Domanic v. Manager, Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Saly Domanic v. Manager, Canara Bank

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

Sumathi Amma Kalpana Vs the State of Kerala

Boben Joseph Vs Deputy Tahsildar (R.R)

Renju Sebastian Vs Banking Ombudsman, Tvm

M/S.S.N.D.P Yogam Vs Dileep Kumar

Sudeerudeen Vs P. Naseekathayeena

Abdullakunhi Vs K.D.C Bank Limited