Dismissed

Jalaja Unnikrishnan v. the Authorized Officer, Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Jul 2018WA/1239/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order denying a borrower further time to repay a housing loan. The borrower had defaulting on the 36-month plan and sought further extension, which was refused.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. No further concession was granted to extend the repayment period.

Jalaja Unnikrishnan Vs the Authorized… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WA.No. 1239 of 2018 IN WPC. 8570/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8570/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-03-2018

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

JALAJA UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, MANJAPALLIL HOUSE, MUNDIYAPALLI P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 645.

¶12

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KUNNAMTHANAM BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689 645.

¶13

R BY SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, DIST.CO.OP.BANK,PTA

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WA.No. 1239 of 2018 IN WPC. 8570/2018

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT DATED 2.4.2018 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

vpv

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ. &

¶24

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶25

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶26

W.A.No.1239 of 2018

¶27

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ.

¶31

The writ petitioner is the appellant before us and she challenges the judgment dated 21.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.8570 of 2018.

¶32

The petitioner availed a housing loan from the Pathanamthitta District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank” for short) and failed to repay the loan on the due dates. The Bank accordingly initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act” for short) for realisation of the outstanding loan amount. It was projected from the Bank's side that Rs.7,90,599/- is the overdue amount but a concession was made that the dues can be cleared in reasonable installments by the borrower.

¶33

Consequent upon the said concession, the learned Judge ordered that the overdue amount shall be paid in 10 monthly installments and the first one of them should be paid within one month from the date of the judgment. Apart from liquidating the overdue amount, the borrower was also expected to pay EMI on the respective due dates.

¶34

The appellant is represented by Sri.Biju Hariharan and he submits that because of various circumstances, the borrower could repay only two of the monthly installments towards the overdue amount and he prays for further accommodation, so that the loan

¶35

W.A.No.1239 of 2018

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

dues can be cleared. He further points out that though 10 months' time was granted to pay the overdue amount, requiring the borrower to pay Rs.1,38,784/- every month, the borrower is unable to pay such a huge monthly instalment within a short span of time of ten months. Accordingly it is submitted by the appellant that the borrower be permitted to liquidate the outstanding in 36 installments instead of 10 installments as was ordered by the learned single judge.

¶38

In response, Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank submits that only because the borrower failed to repay the dues, the proceeding for recovery under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the Bank. Moreover before the writ court, the Bank conceded to the liquidation of the overdue amount in reasonable monthly installments. But since the borrower has failed to keep to her commitment and could repay only two of those 10 monthly installments, there can be no justification to indulge her further.

¶39

As can be seen in this case, the borrower was required to clear the overdue amount in monthly installments in terms of the Court's verdict, but she failed to keep to her commitment and was unable to make payment of the balance 8 monthly installments. In such circumstances, we are disinclined to allow her further concession in clearing the overdue amount, on the housing loan.

¶40

The appeal is thus considered to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge

¶44

vpv

Jalaja Unnikrishnan v. the Authorized Officer, Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaja Unnikrishnan v. the Authorized Officer, Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Sreekuttan Vs State of Kerala

Bimal Roy C.V. Vs the Passport Officer

John Mathew Vs P.T. Aniyankunju

Durgadas Vs Sri.Subros Biswas

Suresh Kumar K.P Vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Aji Peter Vs State of Kerala