The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed the review petition filed by a borrower against a writ appeal order directing installment payment of an education loan liability under SARFAESI proceedings, holding the petition devoid of merits.
Review petition dismissed; Bank directed to recover only legally due amounts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
RP.No. 418 of 2018 IN WA.No.1578/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-03-2018 IN WA NO.1578/2017 of
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
LAL CHINNAPPAN, 61 YEARS S/O(LATE)CHINNAPPAN,KURISHINKAL HOUSE, THYCKAL.P.O,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA.PIN:688012.
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA ARTHINKAL BRANCH,ARTHINKAL.P.O,ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
BY ADV. MS.S AMBILY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 418 of 2018 IN WA.No.1578/2017
2
ORDER
Hariprasad, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents.
“Antony Dominic, C.J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C) No.9088/17 challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondents for recovery of the liability due from him arising out of an education loan granted to his daughter. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition granting an instalment facility. It is still aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Before us, the plea reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant was to direct the respondent bank to regularise the loan in order to enable him to liquidate the liability. First of all, from the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel
3
RP.No. 418 of 2018 IN WA.No.1578/2017
for the bank, we are also satisfied that the said request is an impermissible one. Secondly, the judgment under appeal shows that the sole prayer of the petitioner was to permit him to remit the balance liability in instalments. We do not think that this court will be justified in compelling the bank to regularise the loan.
Be that as it may, according to the bank, as on today the liability due to the bank is Rs.9,16,489/-. Considering the fact that the loan is an education loan and the desire of the appellant is to liquidate the liability, we direct the appellant to clear the liability in 20 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 28.3.2018 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 28th of every succeeding month. It is made clear that in case the appellant makes any default in remitting any of the instalments, the Bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings already initiated against him.”
amount in the judgment is incorrect. According to him, he has made so many payments earlier which were not credited to the loan account. According to him, after disposal of the writ petition a sum of `2,92,600/has been paid.
After hearing counsel on both sides, we are of the view that
RP.No. 418 of 2018 IN WA.No.1578/2017
4
the review petition is without any merits. However, it is made clear that the respondent bank can only recover whatever amount that is legally due from the review petitioner. Merely for the reason that `9,16,489/- is shown in the judgment of this Court in the writ appeal, it will not enable the bank to realise the said amount if it is not actually due to the bank.
With these observations the review petition is dismissed.
A.HARIPRASAD,
JUDGE.
SHIRCY V., JUDGE.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition for correcting the quantum of recoverable amount in an education loan SARFAESI case has any merits.
Whether the bank can recover the amount shown in the impugned judgment if it is not legally due.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lal Chinappan
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Civil Station Ward, Alappuzha
State Bank of India Arthinkingal Branch
A. Hariprasad
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
