P.Asia vs The Manager on 28 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7677 of 2010(H)


1. P.ASIA, PROPRIETRESS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :28/05/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                       Dated this the 28th May , 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is proprietor of an SSA Unit had

availed a loan from the respondent Bank creating security

interest over the property in question, but repayment could not

be effected on time. This made the respondent Bank to declare

the account as ‘NPA’ and to proceed with further steps invoking

the provisions under the SARFAESI Act , which is under challenge

in this Writ Petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

proceedings now stated as being pursued by the respondent

Bank, particularly seeking for the assistance of the Police by

filing a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before

the C.J.M. Court and further steps are not liable to be sustained

for the fact that absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act .

W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010

2

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, with

reference to the copies of the proceedings, submits that a

notice was issued on 24.09.2008 and that the notice which was

sent by registered post was returned ‘unclaimed’. Thereafter,

the notice was published in two dailies, viz., in ‘Deshabhimani’

and ‘Mathrubhumi’ dated 23.10.2008. It is brought to the

notice of this Court that the total outstanding liability as on

17.05.2010 is Rs.2.75 lakhs with further interest and cost .

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was absolutely having no idea with regard to the notice

stated as issued and submits that the default was never wilful

but because of some unforeseen circumstances. The learned

Counsel further submits that the petitioner does not intend to

challenge the steps any further by approaching the DRT or

otherwise and that the only limited prayer pressed before this

Court is that she may be permitted to clear the liability in a

phased manner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the

persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the

W.P.(C) No. 7677 OF 2010

3

petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by

way of ‘six’ equal monthly installments, the first of which shall

be effected on or before 30.06.2010, to be followed by similar

installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the

succeeding months. Subject to the above, the recovery

proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall

be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is

committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as

above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with

further coercive steps for realisation of the amount in a lump

sum, from the stage where it stands now.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk