Allowed

Baiju S.R. v. Central Bank of India

Kerala HC4 Apr 2016WP(C)/8498/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged SARFAESI Act recovery proceedings for loan default. Court directed bank to stay proceedings if petitioner repays total outstanding in 11 equal monthly installments starting April 20, 2016, and provides regular schedule payments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance conditioned on repayment of Rs.17,95,139/- in 11 equal monthly installments plus interest, alongside regular schedule payments.

Baiju S.R. Vs Central Bank of India — Specific Performance | 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. 8498 of 2016 (J) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BAIJU S.R., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SUGATHAN, RESIDING AT PLAVILA VEEDU, POONCODE, BHAGAVATHINADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 501.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MALAYINKEEHU BRANCH, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER).

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR, SC SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

msv/

¶14

WP(C).No. 8498 of 2016 (J)

¶15

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

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 06.2.2016.

¶19

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN MC NO. 1082/2015 DT. 19.11.2015.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 8498 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner, who had availed of a term loan and 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 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. 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 account the plea of financial hardship raised by the petitioner, I

¶32

-2-

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 8498 of 2016

¶34

dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶35

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of the term loan, is stated to be Rs.7,50,442/- as on today. Similarly, the total amount outstanding under the Cash Credit facility is stated to be Rs.10,44,697/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the total amount of Rs.17,95,139/- together with accrued interest in eleven equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 20.04.2016, and continues to keep up the regular installments as per the original loan schedule in the term loan account, 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, 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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

das /04.04.2016

Baiju S.R. v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju S.R. v. Central Bank of India

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

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