Allowed

Thomas P. Kuriakose v. the Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

Kerala HC16 Jun 2022WP(C)/2456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, granting loan defaulters an opportunity to repay the total overdue amount of Rs.23,52,278 in 15 instalments, regularise accounts, and suspend coercive proceedings contingent on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to accept Rs.23,52,278 in 15 instalments, regularise accounts, and keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.

Thomas P. Kuriakose Vs the Kottayam Co-Operative Urban… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THOMAS P. KURIAKOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.T.KURIAKOSE, PARAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 016.

¶8

2 KURIAN T.PARAYIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS P.KURIAKOSE, PARAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKADU, P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 016. 3 SHYLA THOMAS, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS P.KURIAKOSE, PARAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 016. BY ADVS. ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL ROHITH C.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED NO.421, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR THIRUNAKKARA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686 001. 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.421, TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR THIRUNAKKARA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA - 686 001.

¶11

BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE, STANDING COUNSEL

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act which have been initiated by the bank for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners. The 1^st and 3^rd petitioners are husband and wife and the 2^nd petitioner is their son. Petitioners 1 and 2 have availed two loans. The 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are guarantors to the loan taken by the 1^st petitioner and the petitioners 1 and 3 are the guarantors to the loan taken by the 2^nd petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have serious disputes regarding the manner in which the amount due from the petitioners 1 and 2 have been calculated by the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 may be permitted to raise a dispute regarding the quantification of amount with the respondent Bank. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that in respect of two loans availed by the petitioners 1 and 2, the overdue amount in respect of one loan namely, loan account No.1467 (OL-1467) is Rs.9,07,801/- and the overdue amount in respect of loan account No.1646 (OL-1646) is Rs.14,44,477/-. It is submitted that a statement in respect of

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶19

both the loans have been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners and if the petitioners have any grievance regarding the manner in which the amount due from the petitioners have been calculated, they may file an appropriate representation before the Bank.

¶20

During the course of hearing, petitioners has confined the relief to an opportunity for repaying the overdue amount in instalments and to obtain regularisation of the loan account.

¶21

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioners committed default in repayment and the total overdue amount is Rs.23,52,278/-(Rupees twenty three lakhs fifty two thousand two hundred and seventy eight only). It was further submitted that though proceedings for recovery have been initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent bank is willing to accept repayment of the overdue amount in limited instalments and regularise the loan account.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the situation now prevailing, apart from the submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioners can be

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶26

granted an opportunity to repay the overdue amount in 15 instalments and thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid within the time as directed above, to have the loan account regularised.

¶27

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.23,52,278/-(Rupees twenty three lakhs fifty two thousand two hundred and seventy eight only) a long with bank charges from the petitioners and regularise the loan accounts of the petitioners on the following conditions:

¶28

i. The overdue amount of Rs.23,52,278/-(Rupees twenty three lakhs fifty two thousand two hundred and seventy eight only) along with any accrued interest and charges shall be repaid in 15 equated monthly instalments.

¶29

ii. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.07.2022 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on the last working day of every succeeding month.

¶30

iii. Petitioners shall continue to pay the regular EMI’s along with the instalments directed above.

¶31

iv. In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

¶32

v. In order to enable the petitioners to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶33

If the petitioners have any grievance regarding the manner

¶34

in which the liability of the petitioners are calculated, they may

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

take up the matter with the appropriate authority of the respondent Bank, however, the filing of any such representation or petition before the Bank will not absolve the petitioners from the liability to discharge the amounts in terms of the directions contained in this judgment.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶40

¶41

WP(C) NO. 2456 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2456/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/08/2021 HAVING FILE NO.LRS NO.20/KCUB/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF OL-1467 AND OL-1646. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/01/2022 ISSUED BY ADV.SHILPA SAM. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADV.M.T.AJAYA KUMAR DATED NIL.

Thomas P. Kuriakose v. the Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas P. Kuriakose v. the Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited

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

Jose K.Joseph, Vs the National Faceless Appeal Centre

Ajith Prasad, Vs Union of India

V.Muraleedharan Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.

Rahmath Khan , Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs

Antony Paul Vs the Authorised Officer

Dileepkumar D Vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co. Operative Bank