Allowed

Harikumar.T.S, v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC12 Mar 2019WP(C)/4025/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a guarantor who defaulted on a bank loan to pay the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly instalments instead of a lump sum, permitting direct payment to avoid excessive recovery charges.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay outstanding amount in 10 monthly instalments starting 27.3.2019; direct payment to bank allowed with 1% recovery charges instead of standard rates.

Harikumar.T.S, Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

HARIKUMAR.T.S, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, THONIPARAMBIL, THOTTAYKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR SRI.N.BIJA KRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

*1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK LTD, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM 683517

¶11

THE ADDRESS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS, AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2019 DATED 12.3.2019

¶12

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK LTD., NORTH PARAVUR BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-683 517

¶13

2 THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK 683101.

¶14

SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU,SC

¶15

R2 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.VINOD.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner is a guarantor to M/s. M.R.Industries, North Paravur for securing a loan from the 1^st respondent bank. Admittedly, repayment was defaulted, consequent to which action was initiated by the bank, evident from Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, dated 8.8.2018. It is thus challenging Ext.P2 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶21

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶22

Even though various contentions are raised by the petitioner against Ext.P2, learned Counsel submitted that, it would suffice, if permission is granted to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in reasonable instalments. Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent bank submitted that an amount of Rs.3,02,416/- is due from the petitioner as on 20.2.2019.

¶23

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and considering the adverse economic situation prevailing, petitioner is permitted to pay the outstanding amount in

¶24

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2019

¶25

¶26

10 equated monthly instalments starting from 27.3.2019 and on the corresponding date of the succeeding months. Needless to say, if any of the instalment is defaulted, respondent bank will be at liberty to resurrect the proceedings and recover the amount in lump. I also make it clear that, if the petitioner is making the payment directly to the bank, the recovery charges shall be confined to 1% of the total amount due.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2019

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.S 792/17 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1968 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08/08/2018.

Harikumar.T.S, v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikumar.T.S, 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

Suresh Kumar, Vs District Collector

Zakkir Hussain Vs Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

Premalatha Prabhakar, Vs the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Navas Vs Dr.M.C Rejil

Parthasarathi Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Mohandas.P.v Vs the District Collector