Allowed

Lidiya Joseph v. the Bank of India

Kerala HC2 Jun 2022WP(C)/14496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted a woman entrepreneur defaulting on a Mudra loan, due to floods and pandemic, to repay the amount with interest in 20 monthly installments while deferring recovery proceedings, provided she adheres to the schedule.

What did the court decide?

Permitting the petitioner to repay the loan amount with interest and cost in 20 equated monthly instalments, deferring recovery proceedings until default in any instalment.

Lidiya Joseph Vs the Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C).14496/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 14496 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

LIDIYA JOSEPH AGED 42 YEARS W/O.K.J.JOSEPH, HAVING RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS KOPRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR SOUTH, PIN - 683 501, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI S.M.PRASANTH G.RENJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G-BLOCK, BANDRA - KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI - 400 051, CARRYING ON BUSINESS THROUGH ITS BRANCH - BANK OF INDIA, UDYOGAMANDAL BRANCH, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN - 683 501, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

¶13

2 THE TAHSILDAR/AUTHORIZED OFFICER (RR) PARAVUR, PIN - 683 513, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP RIYAL DEVASSY; SC FOR R1 JAWAHAR JOSE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON 2.6.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).14496/22

V.G.ARUN, J.

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 14496 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner, a woman entrepreneur, had availed a Mudra loan from

¶23

the 1^st respondent Bank for starting a small scale industry. The industry faced various local problems from the initial stage itself. The situation worsened with the floods and the pandemic. As a result, repayment of the loan fell in default and the Bank initiated action for recovery.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be termed as a wilfull defaulter, as the default is for reasons beyond her control. It is submitted that, considering the present plight of the petitioner and the policy of the Government that the Banks should provide support to the women entrepreneurs, maximum leniency should be shown and the petitioner permitted to repay the defaulted amount in easy instalments.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the Bank is bound to follow the prescribed procedure and there is a limit to the leniency that this Court can extend in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and being conscious of the plight faced by businessmen and entrepreneurs after

¶27

WP(C).14496/22

¶28

¶29

the floods, the pandemic and the lockdown, I find the petitioner's claim for repayment in easy instalments to be well founded.

¶30

The writ petition is hence disposed of, permitting the petitioner to repay the loan amount with interest and cost, in 20 equated monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 5.8.2022 and the balance instalments, within the 5^th day of every succeeding month. Default in payment of any one instalment will result in the benefit of this judgment being recalled and the Bank being at liberty to proceed with the recovery. As long as the instalments are paid regularly, the Bank shall defer the recovery proceedings.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

WP(C).14496/22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14496/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 20/01/2022 IN
	C.S.NO.58 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.RRC NO.2022/378/07 DT.21/02/2022 ISSUED BY R2.
Exhibit P2A	TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO RRC NO.2022/378/07 DT. 19/02/2022 ISSUED BY R2.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 25/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2.

Lidiya Joseph v. the Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lidiya Joseph v. the Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divine Gas Enterprises Vs Union of India

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Marysadan Edathala International (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

A. v. Rasiya Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Supplyco)

Suresh Kumar K Vs State of Kerala

Sumitha.a.S. Vs the State of Kerala