IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7922 of 2010(M)
1. JOY DANIEL, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER,
3. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 7922 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
respondent Bank in March, 2007, creating security interest over the
property in question. However, the petitioner was not agreed to satisfy
the monthly instalments; under which circumstance, the Bank declared
the account as NPA and proceeded with further steps under the
SARFAESI Act, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ
Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions
that a total sum of Rs.16,82,803/- is due from the petitioner as in
February 2010 for wiping off the liability under the loan transaction. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earnest arrangements are
being made to clear the liability and that he might be given some
breathing time by way of reasonable instalments if the question of
regularization is not possible.
3. Taking note of the contention raised from the part of the
Bank that the question of regularization is not liable to be entertained;
this Court finds that the petitioner could be permitted to clear the entire
WP(C) No.7922/2010
2
liability by way of reasonable instalments. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before the 31st of this
month and the balance amount shall be cleared by way of `five’ equal
monthly instalments, the first of which shall 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 satisfying the liability as above, the respondent Bank will be
at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount
in a lump sum.
4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the alternate
remedy available under the statute by approaching the DRT and that the
petitioner does not want to press any of the contentions with regard to the
steps taken by the respondent Board under the SARFAESI Act is
recorded.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc