Disposed

Jameskutty v. the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017OP (DRT)/99/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the Court denied the petitioner's request for loan regularisation based on a partial deposit. Having failed to comply with earlier instalment directions from a related writ petition, the Court directed the petitioner to clear balance dues by 31.01.2017 before recovery proceedings could be stayed. The petitioner was noted to be only a guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed till 31.01.2017 conditional upon payment of outstanding instalments; original petition closed with direction to pay balance.

Jameskutty Vs the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

O.P.(DRT).No.99 of 2016 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

JAMESKUTTY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, MAMPRAYIL HOUSE, MAYITHARA PO, CHERTHALA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, CERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRIP.S.SUJETH SMT.M.R.REENA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT CELL, FEDERAL TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31.

¶11

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., NORTH BRANCH, P.B.NO.1927, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 18. 3. M/S.CELINI CREATIONS, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.JOSEPH KURUVILA, S/O.KURUVILA, 36/1864B, GANGOTHRI, SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17.

¶12

R1 &R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV.

¶13

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶14

OP (DRT).No.99 of 2016 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 12.4.2016. P2 TRUE COY OF THE LEGAL NOITCE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BANK DATD 30.6.2016.

¶18

P3 TRUE COY OF THE DD NO.'343375' DATD 12.10.2016, PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER TO CLEAR THE OVERDUE AMOUNT UP TO DATE

¶19

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE DRT, DATED 7.10.2016, AS PER THE A-DIARY.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:------------------------- NIL.

¶21

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶22

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶23

---------------------------------------O.P.(DRT).No.99 of 2016-O

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2017

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner seeks for regularisation of the loan with the 1^st respondent on the basis of deposit made as per the the interim order dated 20.10.2016; which, the petitioner submits, is the total outstanding arrears as of now. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the petitioner to remit Rs.4,70,000/- [Rupees four lakhs and seventy thousand] within three days. The amount has been remitted in time. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the remittance has been made as directed; but there is no question of the same settling the entire arrears, since the petitioner has failed to satisfy the loan amount as directed by this Court in an earlier writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only a guarantor and not the borrower; the borrower being the 3^rd respondent, who has not turned up till today to pay off the debt.

¶28

OP(DRT) No.99 of 2016 - 2 -

¶29

The petitioner, along with his wife, was before this Court with W.P.(C) No.6021 of 2016. Then the total outstanding was Rs.45,55,962/- as on 31.03.2016. The petitioner was granted 11 equal and successive monthly instalments, commencing from 30.04.2016. Admittedly the petitioner, after the disposal of the said writ petition, had paid only Rupees One Lakh.

¶30

Even when the instalment period granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition was not over, again the present writ petition was filed, in which an interim order was granted keeping the proceedings in abeyance on condition of deposit of Rs.4,70,000/-. It is to be noticed that considering the total outstanding as on 31.03.2016 and the 11 instalments granted for satisfaction of the entire debt, the monthly instalment as per the aforesaid judgment would come to more than Rs.4,14,000/-. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to have deposited the amounts due as per the instalments granted earlier by this Court. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to further grant instalments especially when the instalment granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition

¶31

OP(DRT) No.99 of 2016 - 3 -

¶32

has not been complied with. If the entire dues as per the instalment already granted is satisfied on or before 31.01.2017, then the Bank would allow the petitioner to remit the balance two instalments also. The recovery proceedings would be kept in abeyance till 31.01.2017 and if no amount has been paid, the Bank would be entitled to proceed with the recovery proceedings.

¶33

The Original Petition is closed with the above direction.

¶34

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶35

vku/-

¶36

[ true copy ]

Jameskutty v. the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameskutty v. the Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd.

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

Brahmachari Prakash Vs Reghunath.a.T

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs Linson P.S.

Razia Rahim Vs the Regional Manager

Mrs. Geena George Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Sajini M.J. Vs Can Fin Homes (P) Ltd.

M/S. Popular Printers Vs the Income Tax Officer(Tds)