Dismissed

T. Rajagopal v. City Union Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Jul 2018WP(C)/20352/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought relief under a writ petition challenging the bank's recovery proceedings after failing to adhere to prior instalment directions. The single-judge High Court, holding the matter as a commercial contractual dispute, dismissed the petition, ruling it is impermissible to compel the bank to offer rescheduling or instalments, which is the creditor's prerogative.

What the court decided

AI extract

T. Rajagopal Vs City Union Bank Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20352 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

1 T. RAJAGOPAL S/O.V.T.RAMANUJAM, KPM GARDENS, RAJGEETH, ERA-11, EMS NAGAR, KSHB COLONY, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035

¶8

2 R.THIRUVANGADA RAMANUJAM, S/O.T.RAJAGOPAL, KPM GARDENS, RAJGEETH, ERA-11, EMS NAGAR, KSHB COLONY, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.REMYA RAVINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

CITY UNION BANK LTD. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU STATE-612 001

¶12

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, CITY UNION BANK LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU STATE-612 001

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CITY UNION BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.N.SASI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 20352 of 2018 (T)

¶17

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN M.C.NO.7/2017 DATED 05.05.2018 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2017 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.05.2018 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.05.2018

¶20

jjj

¶21

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 20352 of 2018 (T)

¶23

Dated: 18^th July, 2018

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioners have an overdraft facility with the respondent Bank. Now the outstanding is over Rs.3 crore. First the Bank initiated recovery proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed S.A. No.58 of 2016. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), with an interim direction, allowed the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount in three equal monthly instalments, that is Rs.25 lakh each. Instead of complying with that, the petitioners filed O.P.(DRT) No.19 of 2016. This Court reduced the amount to Rs.15 lakh. The petitioner paid that amount.

¶26

Again, within no time, the petitioners fell in arrears and did not pay the overdues. Once again, when the Bank initiated fresh proceedings, the petitionera filed W.P.(C)

¶27

W.P.(C) No.20352/2018

¶28

-2-

¶29

No.15699 of 2017. This Court granted a conditional stay: to pay Rs.25 lakh as a condition precedent. The petitioner did not honour the direction. On the other hand, he withdrew that writ petition. Thereafter the Bank invoked Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and filed M.C. No.7 of 2017 before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate. When those proceedings are pending, the petitioner has once again filed this writ petition.

¶30

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the petitioners are chronic defaulters and they have, on more than one occasion, abused the process of this Court. Therefore, he has submitted that the Bank is not willing to provide any leverage to the petitioner. It does not agree for instalments.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.20352/2018

¶32

-3-

¶33

The facts are not in dispute: The petitioners had committed default, and the respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings. The issue, pure and simple, is a contractual dispute—a commercial one at that.

¶34

It is impermissible to compel, even to expect, the bank officials to respond to the petitioners' demand for instalments. Instalments they have since inception; what the petitioners now wanted is a rescheduling of the loan, which is the creditor's prerogative. And it is not in this Court's province.

¶35

For the above reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. No order

¶36

on costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶39

jjj 18/07/2018

T. Rajagopal v. City Union Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T. Rajagopal v. City Union Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P. Baby Vs the Authorized Officer/Regional Manager

K.K Praveen Vs Authorized Officer

C. Dileep Vs the Co-Operative Arbitration Court

Raju G.T Vs Authorised Officer Magma Housing Finance Limited

Reji M.P. Vs the Branch Manager,Karur Vysa Bank

M.R. Rajendran Nair Vs the Corporation of Cochin