Allowed

Sreepriya.S v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC16 Jun 2022WP(C)/3023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition seeking repayment of a defaulted loan. The court directed the bank to accept the payment in 10 equated monthly installments due to COVID-19 difficulties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall repay the entire amount due, with interest and cost in 10 equated monthly installments; recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

Sreepriya.S Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3023 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREEPRIYA.S AGED 41 YEARS WIFE OF SANTHOSH RAMAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR KEERTHANA TEXTILES, CHARUMOOD JUNCTION, CHARUMOOD P.O., ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT THAYYIL KADUVINKAL,VALLIKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690501

¶8

BY ADVS. T.S.HARIKUMAR P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA , RASMEC,AMBANATTU BUILDINGS, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,MAVELIKARA, PIN – 690101

¶11

2 MANAGER CHARUMOOD BRANCH, SUNSHINE BUILDING,CHARUMOOD P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690505

¶12

BY ADV. JITESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C) NO. 3023 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2022

¶18

The petitioner, sole proprietor of a Textile shop, had availed cash credit (Vypar Suvidha) of Rs.25 lakhs from State Bank of India, Charumood Branch in 2013. The petitioner’s husband and mother-in-law stood as guarantors for the loan and the husband deposited the title deeds of his property in order to create an equitable mortgage. Petitioner committed default in payment and the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and later, initiated proceedings to take physical possession of the secured assets.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court by directing the respondents to accept the amount in 15 equated monthly installments.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that, as on date an amount of Rs.27,44,178/- is due from the petitioner under the

¶21

¶22

WP(C) NO. 3023 OF 2022

¶23

cash credit facility and, if at all, the petitioner should be directed to pay back the amount in five or six Installments.

¶24

Taking into account the prevailing circumstances, and the difficulties faced by the public at large due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be permitted to pay off the amount in ten equal monthly installments.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as under;

¶26

i. The petitioner shall repay the entire amount due, with interest and cost in 10 equated monthly installments. The first installment shall be remitted on or before 15.07.2022 and the balance installments, before 15^th of every succeeding month.

¶27

ii. Default in any one of the installments will result in the benefit of this judgment being withdrawn and the respondents being at liberty to proceed with the recovery.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 3023 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

iii. As long as the installments are paid without default, the recovery proceedings shall be

kept in abeyance.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/16-6

WP(C) NO. 3023 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3023/2022

¶39

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 06-06- 2019
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 29-11-2021 WITH RESPECT THE A/C.NO.67227855770 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
	THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24-11-2021

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

TRUE COPY

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

Sreepriya.S v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreepriya.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

Libin.C.v Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Sreejithlal S.K Vs Chief Engineer (Roads) Public Works Department

Seru Vs District Collector

Binu Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

Mariyam Beevi, Vs Union of India

P.S.Noorjahan Vs the State of Kerala