Disposed

Mary Reena Jacob, v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC14 Jun 2019WP(C)/6556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive recovery proceedings initiated by State Bank of India after defaulting on a Mudra loan. Court directed bank to provide account statement, permitted installment payments with a single churning fee, and suspended proceedings if payment terms are met.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to issue account statement within 2 weeks allowing payment in 5 monthly installments; proceedings suspended pending compliance.

Mary Reena Jacob, Vs State Bank of India — 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6556 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARY REENA JACOB, AGED 44 YEARS

¶8

W/O. H.P.SHABU, VAYALIL BHAVAN, EMS NAGAR, T.C.94/1550,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 035

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC,KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 582,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ( AUTHORISED OFFICER)

¶12

2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695 001

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR,PIN-695 035

¶14

BY ADV.

¶15

SRI.R.S.KALKURA,SC SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.6556 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has availed a mudra loan from the State Bank of Travancore which was later merged with the State Bank of India 1^st respondent herein. According to the 1^st respondent repayment was defaulted consequent to which coercive action resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was initiated evident from Exts.P2 series under Sections 7 and 34 of the Act. It is thus challenging the coercive action this writ petition is filed.

¶21

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

¶22

The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,93,215/- (One lakh ninety three thousand two hundred and fifteen only) evident from Ext.P1 pass book. However, when the recovery notices are issued the said payment was not taken into account and therefore the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as is shown in the recovery notices.

¶23

That being the situation, I am of the considered opinion

¶24

WP(C).No.6556 of 2019

¶25

¶26

that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriated direction to the 1^st respondent. There will be direction to the 1^st respondent to issue a statement of account to the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy this judgment showing the entire payments effected by the petitioner and the balance outstanding. If there is still balance outstanding from the petitioner to the 1^st respondent bank it shall be paid by the petitioner in five equated monthly installments starting from the 5^th day of the succeeding month from serving the statements of accounts to the petitioner and consecutively during the following months. I also make it clear that if the petitioner is making any default in the matter of payment of installments, the respondents will be at liberty to resurrect the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P2 and recover the amount. It is further made clear if the amounts are paid directly to the bank the collection charges shall be confined to one percentage of the total amount deposited. I am also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that term loan is for a period of 84 months and if the petitioner is updating the outstanding dues, the bank may be directed to consider regularising the loan account. Accordingly there will be a direction to the bank to consider any such application filed.

¶27

WP(C).No.6556 of 2019

¶28

¶29

There will be a further direction to the petitioner to pay regular

¶30

monthly installments to the 1^st respondent bank without fail.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

SCS

JUDGE

WP(C).No.6556 of 2019

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 29/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Mary Reena Jacob, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Reena Jacob, v. State Bank of India

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 Babu Vs a.R.Ajayakumar

State of Kerala Vs T.R.Radhakrishnan

The Meenachil Rubber Marketing & Processing Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Marangattupilly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .NO.3556

Y.a.Praveen Vs Headmaster

Vimaladithyan, Vs the Chairman

Sugathan Gopalan, Vs the Union of India