Allowed

Rajeeram Prasad v. Canara Bank

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/22436/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by home loan defaulters challenging a possession notice. The court allowed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 within two weeks and remit the balance in six equal monthly instalments. Recovery proceedings were deferred accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to remit Rs.50,000 within two weeks and balance amount with future interest in six equal monthly instalments; recovery proceedings deferred.

Rajeeram Prasad Vs Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942 W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 RAJEERAM PRASAD, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUVAN MURIYIL, EVOOR NORTH,CHEPPAD.P.O., KAYAMKULAM,PIN-690 507.

¶7

2 SMT SREELEKHA.S, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O RAJEERAM PRASAD, RESIDING AT KURUVAN MURIYIL, EVOOR NORTH,CHEPPAD.P.O, KAYAMKULAM,PIN-690 507.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CANARA BANK, PUTHIYADOM, KAYAMKULAM.P.O.-690 502 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶11

2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK,PUTHIYADOM, KAYAMKULAM.P.O-690 502.

¶12

R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R1&R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJA KANNAN R1&R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.PARVATHY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioners, who availed a home loan from the 1^st respondent Bank, in the year 2008, with a tenure of 20 years, after creating a mortgage over 4 cents of property in Re.survey No.124/1 of Cheppad Village in Karthikappally Taluk in Alappuzha District, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice dated 14.10.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the loan account of the petitioners and to allow them to pay the overdue amounts in instalments and to allow them to pay balance amount in instalment, as per the terms of the loan agreement; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed against the petitioners under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or under any other law.

¶18

On 22.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank sought time to get instructions.

¶19

On 30.10.2020, it was submitted by the learned

¶20

W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶21

-3-

¶22

Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank that the account in question has been declared as 'non-performing assets' in the year 2016. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to file statement.

¶23

A statement has been filed on behalf of the

¶24

respondents. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that statement read thus;

¶25

“2. It is submitted that the present statement is filed with the limited purpose to bring on record the liability of the Petitioner towards the Bank, pursuant to which Exhibit P1 notice has been issued by the Respondents.

¶26

It is submitted that the Petitioner had availed a housing loan from the Respondents on 19/09/2008. Though he made initial payments towards the loan dues, the Petitioner had been a defaulter since 09/07/2016. The loan account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset by the Bank on 09.10.2016 by the Respondents due to the default by the Petitioner in making payments. As a result of which the entire loan account has been recalled on 01/01/2019. Therefore, the Respondents would not be in a position to regularize the loan account of the Petitioner.

¶27

From 2016 till date, the Petitioner has paid Rs.2,38,255.17 (Rupees two lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred fifty five and seventeen paise only). Since the outstanding amount was not cleared and the status of the Account had not changed from NPA to Standard, the Account has been recalled. The outstanding amount as on 30.10.2020 is Rs.4,89,398.44 (Rupees four lakh eight nine thousand three hundred ninety eight and forty four paise only). Unless and until, the entire outstanding amount is not paid by the Petitioner. The

¶28

W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶29

-4-

¶30

Respondents would not been able to hold back from taking possession of the secured property.”

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

¶32

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank would point out that the loan account has already been recalled and the total amount outstanding, as on 30.10.2020, is Rs.4,89,398.44/-.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners shall pay off the entire dues, together with future interest, within a reasonable time, for which they require monthly instalments.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that, in case the petitioners are prepared to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/-, within a period of two weeks, the respondent Bank is prepared to grant them an opportunity to pay off the balance amount together with future interest, in 6 equal monthly instalments.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are prepared to pay off the entire dues in monthly instalments, as above.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶38

-5-

¶39

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

¶40

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the

¶41

following directions;

¶42

i) The petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with the 1^st respondent Bank, within a period of two weeks from this date.

¶43

ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance amount together with future interest, in 6 equal monthly instalments, commencing from 14.12.2020 and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the 14^th day of succeeding months.

¶44

iii) In case the petitioners are remitting the amount as aforesaid, all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred for the time being, so as to enable the petitioners to pay off the entire dues as above.

¶45

iv) In case of any default committed by the petitioners in remitting any one of the aforesaid instalments, it would be open to the respondents to proceed further with coercive steps.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶48

bpr

¶49

W.P.(C) No.22436 OF 2020(D)

¶50

-6-

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 14/10/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Rajeeram Prasad v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeeram Prasad v. Canara Bank

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

Pastor v.K.James Vs the State of Kerala

K.M. Saidumohammed Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Muhammed Jinoz Vs District Police Chief

Abdul Rahim Vs the Union of India

Abdul Rahim, Vs the Union of India

Adheena Joemon, Vs State of Kerala