IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30246 of 2009(A)
1. M/S.SANGEETHA ENTERPRISES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No. 30246/2009 & 30267/2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The issues involved in both these cases are very much
interconnected, in so far as two different loans were extended by
the respondent bank; the first one, a ‘Car loan’ in the name of the
petitioner in W.P(C) No.30267 of 2009, and the other, a ‘business
loan’ in the name of the petitioner in the connected case which is a
partnership firm owned by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30267 of
2009 and his wife. The car loan was of Rs.6.8 lakh, while the
business loan was of Rs.15 lakhs. But the petitioners were not at
all eager to clear the liability due under the instalments as specified;
which made the respondent bank to proceed with further steps for
realization of the due amounts and this forms the subject matter of
challenge in these writ petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits on
instructions, that a sum of Rs.17.79 lakhs is due in respect of the
business loan involved in W.P.(C) No.30246 of 2009 and a sum of
Rs.1,54,500/- is due towards the defaulted instalments in respect
W.P(C) No. 30246/2009 & 30267/2009 2
of the car loan involved in W.P.(C) No.30267 of 2009. The learned
counsel further submits that the bank is very much agreeable to
have the car loan regularized, on condition that the petitioner
satisfies the overdue amounts in respect of the said loan; however
adding that, it is not possible for the bank to have the business loan
regularized.
3. Taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances, this
Court directs the petitioner to have the liability cleared in respect of
the ‘Car loan’ by satisfying the over due amounts by way of ‘three’
equal monthly instlaments. The first instalment in this regard shall
be paid on or before the 31st of this month, to be followed by the
remaining instalments to be effected on or before the 25th of the
succeeding months. This will be in addition to the liability of the
petitioner to effect regular EMIs in respect of the car loan as well.
Subject to the above car loan account of the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.30267 of 2009 shall stand regualarised. If the petitioner
commits any default in this regard or if any two consecutive defaults
are made in satisfying the regular EMIs, the benefit granted by this
Court will stand withdrawn and the respondent bank will be at
liberty to proceed against the petitioner for realisation of the entire
amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now.
W.P(C) No. 30246/2009 & 30267/2009 3
4. With regard to the issue involved in W.P.(C) No.30246 of
2009, taking note of the submission made by either side and also
considering the extent of liability under the ‘business loan’ this
Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the said
liability by way of five equal monthly instlaments. The petitioner in
the said case is accordingly directed to clear the entire liability in
respect of the ‘business loan’ in ‘five’ equal monthly instalments; the
first of which shall be effected on or before 15.2.2010, to be
followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th
of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if any default is
committed by the petitioner in satisfying the due amount as above,
it will open to the bank, to proceed with appropriate steps for
realization of the entire due amount in a lump sum.
Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab