Allowed

Beena Vasanthan v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019WP(C)/3608/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a loan account regularization arrangement in a writ petition under SARFAESI Act. The court directed the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments within specific timelines, granting a chance to regularize the account while warning of consequences for default.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2019 and the balance of Rs. 5,90,466/- with applicable charges and interest in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 06.05.2019

Beena Vasanthan Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3608 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

BEENA VASANTHAN, W/O. VASANTHAN, AGED 48, KANAMKOTTIL HOUSE, EDAKKARA DESOM, KADIKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.REENA SRIP.S.SUJETH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THRISSUR DT. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VADAKKEKKARA BRANCH, THRISSUR.

¶11

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,THE THRISSUR DT. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SAPTHADHI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O, THRISSUR-680 022.

¶12

BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 3608/19

JUDGMENT

Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls into question certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶19

As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.

¶20

WPC 3608/19

¶21

¶22

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude to enable her to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶23

I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶24

In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing her an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶25

WPC 3608/19

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.7,90,466/- as on 08.02.2019 in not more than six instalments commencing from 06.05.2019, provided the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶29

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.7,90,466/- as on 08.02.2019, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid on or before 28.03.2019 and the balance amount, along with applicable charges and interest, in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 06.05.2019. She shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, her loan account would stand regularised and she would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the original loan sanction. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the

¶30

WPC 3608/19

¶31

¶32

benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.

¶33

I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances,will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and she will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank, under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶34

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

stu

WPC 3608/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14.01.2019 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NOTICE DATED 30.01.2019

¶42

/TRUE COPY/

¶43

P.S. TO JUDGE

Beena Vasanthan v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Vasanthan v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Reeja S.S. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Jiju K.B. Vs Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Seema Saji, Vs the Authorized Officer, Kottayam Co-Operarive Urban Bank Limited