Allowed

Mary Stenu v. the Union Bank of India

Kerala HC21 Jun 2022WP(C)/4756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Securitisation Act proceedings for recovery of overdue housing loan amounts. Grants petitioner an opportunity to repay in 15 instalments with regular EMI to regularize account without coercive proceedings. First instalment due by 30.6.2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent bank to accept repayment of Rs.5,81,689/- plus interest in fifteen equal monthly instalments starting by 30.6.2022 and regularize account; coercive proceedings abeyant.

Mary Stenu Vs the Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(C).4756/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 4756 OF 2022

PETITIONER/S:

MARY STENU

AGED 28 YEARS

W/O.STEPHEN FREDINANT, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

BY ADV BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶15

REGIONAL OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶16

2 MANAGER

¶17

UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM BRANCH, NK BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI. A S P KURUP (SC)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).4756/22

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) for recovery of the amounts due upon a loan availed by the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioner committed default in repayment and the overdue amount is Rs.5,81,689/- as on 21.06.2022. 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.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the situation now prevailing, apart from the submissions made as recorded above and considering the fact that this is a housing loan and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner has undertaken to clear off the overdue amount along with regular EMIs, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to

¶29

W.P(C).4756/22

¶30

¶31

clear off the overdue amount in fifteen (15) equal instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 30.6.2022 and thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid within the time as directed above, to have the loan account regularised.

¶32

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.5,81,689/- along with accrued interest/bank charges from the petitioner and regularise the loan account of the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The overdue amount of Rs. 5,81,689/- together with any accrued interest and charges shall be repaid in fifteen (15) equated monthly instalments.

¶34

(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.6.2022 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the last working day of every succeeding month.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶41

okb/22.6.22

¶42

//True copy// PS to Judge

¶43

W.P(C).4756/22

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4756/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 1/12/2017 ISSUED BY HEALTHY SMILES SUPER SPECIALITY DENTAL CLINIC DATED 1/12/2017. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

Mary Stenu v. the Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Stenu v. the Union 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

Alikunju P S Vs Authorised Officer

Sanil Muhammed Khani Vs State of Kerala , High Court of Kerala

Haneef Vs State of Kerala

The Kerala Plantation Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Rajesh R Shenoy Vs the Authorised Officer

Kiranram M. Vs the Icici Bank Ltd.