Disposed

Markose Kuzhalanattu v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC16 Jul 2018WP(C)/1511/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the demand notices issued by the respondent bank under the SARA Act due to an inability to repay loans. The High Court rejected the plea to interdict contractual terms but, accepting the bank's willingness to regularize the account, ordered the petitioner to pay dues in eight monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay accumulated dues and future regular instalments in eight equal monthly instalments starting 16.08.2018. Bank to regularize loan account on payment. Respondent may proceed if

Markose Kuzhalanattu Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1511 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARKOSE KUZHALANATTU, SON OF KM ABRAHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, KUZHALANATTU HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O, PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 723.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS SMT.JINU ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (APPOINTED UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002), SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS, ALUVA -PARAVOOR RD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683108.

¶11

2. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS, ALUVA - PARAVOOR RD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM -683 108, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (APPOINTED UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002).

¶12

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

PBS

¶15

WP(C).No. 1511 of 2018 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.07.2013 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 PERTAINING TO LOAN ACCOUNT NO.70006968 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.07.2013 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 PERTAINING TO LOAN ACCOUNT NO.70006969

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

¶20

/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE

¶21

PBS 21/7/2018

¶22

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶23

W.P.(C). No.1511 of 2018

¶24

======================================================= Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, apart from perusing the record.

¶27

The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed Exhibits P1 and P2 notices. The amounts outstanding in the two loan accounts are stated to be Rs.5,54,781/- and 10,61,145/-.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan amount because of his stringent financial conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments.

¶29

Before proceeding further, I may observe that expansive

¶30

-2-

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 1511 of 2018

¶32

as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, I am afraid, it does not go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.

¶33

But, being aware of the difficulties involved in realising the loan amounts through invidious sale of the property, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, has submitted that the respondent Bank is willing to regularise the loan account by collecting the outstanding amount in eight equal monthly instalments, along with regular instalments.

¶34

So, based on the Bank's concession, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the petitioner to pay the accumulated dues, along with regular instalments, in eight equal monthly instalments, starting from

¶35

-3-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 1511 of 2018

¶37

16.08.2018. Subject to the petitioner's paying the instalments in the manner indicated above, the respondent Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. If the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive instalments within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed further without recourse to this Court.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶41

Markose Kuzhalanattu v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Markose Kuzhalanattu v. the Authorised 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

Mr. Harikumar Vs the Pathanamthitta District Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Joy M.V Vs State of Kerala

Shadeeja M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Ajay Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

Joseph C. Antony Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India