Disposed

Jacob Barry v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC10 Jan 2017WP(C)/130/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings against his property due to loan defaults. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on terms granting twelve monthly instalments, staying proceedings absent default, and directing provisional possession of the property upon payment of half the arrear amount.

What did the court decide?

Twelve monthly instalments granted; recovery proceedings stayed pending payment; possession of property to be handed over upon payment of half the arrear amounts.

Jacob Barry Vs State Bank of Travancore — 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

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 130 of 2017 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JACOB BARRY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, PATHIYIL HOUSE, BARRY ESTATE, KATTUSSERY, PALAKKAD-678 541.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (ASSOCIATE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA) ALATHUR BRANCH, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD-678 541, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI. JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR, SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

mbr/

¶13

WP(C).No. 130 of 2017 (M)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶16

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT INN CMA NO.131/2016 OF THE COURT OF IIND ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE OF PALAKKAD DATED 19-10-2016.

¶17

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18-11-2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶23

=====================

¶24

W.P.(C)No.130 of 2017 - M

¶25

========================= Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2017

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner's property for recovery of dues in a Cash Credit Facility loan, term loan and an agricultural term loan. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running a quarry and since there was some impediment in continuing the operations of the quarry, the petitioner's business has ceased and hence the default occurred.

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that there are huge dues in all the three loans and there is no question of regularisation, since one is a Cash Credit Facility and the others are term loans, for a period of one year. In such circumstance, the petitioner has

¶29

to pay off the entire dues, is the contention.

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C)No.130 of 2017

¶32

It is also submitted that as on 04.01.2017, in the Cash Credit Facility there is an amount outstaing of Rs.21,51,510/- and the term loan and agricultural term loan respectively of Rs.6,43,919/- and 4,23,818/-. Considering the facts of the case and the alleged impecunious circumstances of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

¶33

(i) The 1^st respondent shall grant twelve monthly

¶34

instalments for the payment of the balance dues, starting from 10.02.2017.

¶35

(ii) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance

¶36

on condition of the remittances as per this order are being made without any default.

¶37

(iii) On the petitioner making two defaults, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C)No.130 of 2017

¶40

(iv) On the 12^th instalment being satisfied, the respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued from 04.01.2017 which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 10^th of the next succeeding month.

¶41

(v) On payment of half of the arrear amounts, as per

¶42

the instalments or in a lump sum, the Bank shall hand over the possession of the property.

¶43

Writ Petition is disposed of as above, making it clear

¶44

that the respondent will be free to proceed with the recovery if the above conditions are not complied with.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

SB/10/01/2017

¶48

// true copy //

¶49

P.A to Judge

Jacob Barry v. State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Barry v. 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

Resmi Vidyasagar Vs Indu K.Paul

Sanalkumar M.S. Vs Joshy Paul Veliyath

Verghese M.O Vs Authorised Officer

Ranjan Vs Anil Kumar

M/S Ardra Associates Vs State of Kerala

P.Mohammed Rashid Vs the Branch Manager