Allowed

M/S.Aryanet Trust v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC11 Aug 2017WP(C)/23428/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition arising from loan default, the Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner to remit the outstanding debt in twelve monthly installments. Pending full payment, the bank's recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings kept in abeyance if the petitioner pays the total overdue amount of Rs.3,60,00,000/- plus interest in twelve equal monthly installments.

M/S.Aryanet Trust Vs the Authorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/20TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23428 of 2017 (C) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.ARYANET TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, VISWANATHAN NAMPATH, S/O LATE N.SUBRAMANIA GUPTAN, AGED 44 YEARS, VELIKKAD, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD-678633.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SRI.R.S.SARAT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, (UNDER SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT) DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, OM SAKTHI TOWERS,163, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600002.

¶11

2. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678631.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WP(C).No. 23428 of 2017 (C)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S ------------	)' EXHIBITS -----------
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION NOTE CCPG/101/2012-13 DATED 17.1.2013.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION NOTE CCSD/284/2014-15 DATED 19.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.9.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT-MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2017 SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.67,00,000/- TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 19.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED 11.4.2017 SHOWING THE CREDIT OF THE ABOVE SUM TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.4.2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING THE DEBIT OF RS.5000/- FROM THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER - TRUST.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE MEMO SERVED ON THE PETITIONER- TRUST BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER FOR EXECUTION OF WARRANT FOR TAKING POSSESSION.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2017 TO 11.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE DIRECTOR BOARD MEETING OF THE ARYANET TRUST DATED 1.7.2017.
RESPONDENTS	EXHIBITS: NIL

¶18

/TRUE COPY/

¶19

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶20

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 23428 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of August , 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner, who had availed four term loans and two vehicle loans 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.P10 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the steps initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the loan amounts.

¶25

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

¶26

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 dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶27

W.P (C) No.23428/2017

¶28

..2..

¶29

(i) The total overdue amount, in respect of all the loans availed by the petitioner, as on today, is stated to be Rs.3,60,00,000/-. Accordingly, if the petitioner remits the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,60,00,000/- together with accrued interest and other charges in twelve equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 13.09.2017, and continues to keep up the regular installment payments as per the original loan schedule in all the loan accounts, then the recovery steps initiated against them by the respondent bank shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(iii)The respondent bank shall furnish the petitioner with an up-to-date statement, of the dues position together with interest, within 10 days from today, so as to enable the petitioner to discharge their liability in accordance with the directions in this judgment.

¶32

Sd/- A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶33

Continued at page no.3

¶34

bng/

¶35

W.P (C) No.23428/2017

¶36

..3..

¶37

The words “as on today” occurring in direction No.(i) of the judgment dated 11/08/2017 in W.P.(C) No.23428/2017 are corrected and substituted as “as on 15.07.2017” as per order dated 26/09/2017 in I.A.No.14329/2017 in W.P.(C) No.23428/2017.

¶38

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

M/S.Aryanet Trust v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Aryanet Trust v. the Authorized Officer

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

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Ideal Powertech Limited

Hazeena K Vs the Authorized Officer, Vijaya Bank

M/S.Haritha Homes Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)

Edinjavila Mohammed Thaha Vs Authorized Officer (Sarc), State Bank of Travancore

Mavely Jewellery Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

The Kerala Cricket Association Vs the Cochin Corporation