Disposed

Sasikumar v. the Senior Manager

Kerala HC6 Apr 2018WP(C)/3535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed defaulting borrowers to discharge their outstanding loan dues via 12 equated monthly instalments starting April 24, 2018. The court permitted lump sum recovery by the bank only if payments default and held that recovery charges would be limited to 1% if paid directly to the bank.

What did the court decide?

Order directing respondents to allow petitioners to pay outstanding dues in 12 equated monthly instalments; recovery charges limited to 1% if paid directly.

Sasikumar Vs the Senior Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3535 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SASIKUMAR, S/O.VASU, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATTARPALLAMKALAM, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD-678507.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA SRI.P.O.ANTONY SMT.PREETHA PETER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SENIOR MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, 15/90 E, NH 47, KANJIKODE BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678621.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), O/O. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678101.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAGHAT-678507.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR, SC R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-04-2018, ALONG WITH WP(C)3553/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

PBS

¶16

WP(C).No. 3535 of 2018 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.2018/546/09 DATED 19.01.2018.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

PBS 9/4/2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶25

======================== W.P.(C) No.3535 & 3553 of 2018

¶26

======================== Dated this the 6^th day of April 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioners are husband and wife, who have availed two independent loans from the Indian Overseas Bank, Kanjikode Branch, Palakkad District. Admittedly repayment was defaulted, consequent to which action is initiated by the bank resorting to Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The issues raised are common in nature and the pleadings are of typical nature. Therefore, I heard them together and pass a common judgment.

¶29

The default on the part of the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount is admitted. Since the petitioners failed to pay the amounts as per the agreement executed, the loan was foreclosed and recovery was sought against the entire amount. In W.P.(C)No.3535/2018, total amount outstanding is 23,33,664/and the outstanding overdue amount is Rs.8,32,915/- as on 31.1.2018. In W.P.(C) No.3553/2018, total outstanding is

¶30

W.P.(C) No.3535 & 3553 of 2018 2

¶31

38,53,615/- and the overdue outstanding is Rs.21,32,051/-. Even though various contentions are raised with respect to the illegality in foreclosing the loan and proceeding to recover the amount, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought indulgence of this Court permitting the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount in reasonable equated monthly instalments, which according to the petitioners are 15 in number. This is stoutly opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind that the outstanding amounts are admitted by the petitioners, I think it is only appropriate that reasonable monthly instalments to be provided to the petitioners. Petitioners will be at liberty to pay the outstanding amount in 12 equated monthly instalments starting from 24.4.2018 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. Needless to say, if the amounts are not paid in accordance with the directions, 1^st respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and recover the amount in lump. I also make it clear that if the amounts are paid

¶33

W.P.(C) No.3535 & 3553 of 2018

¶34

¶35

directly to the bank, the recovery charges shall be confined to 1% of the total amount deposited.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/

¶38

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶39

jm/

¶40

\ True copy \

¶41

PA to Judge

Sasikumar v. the Senior Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikumar v. the Senior Manager

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

Paulose Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kollam Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

C.Narayanan Vs the Village Officer, Shornur - II

Thomas M v Vs a.Hemachandran, I.P.S. Managing Director, Ksrtc

Tathakutty Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

M/S. Kothamangalam Aggregates Vs Kerala State Electricity Board