IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16715 of 2010(L)
1. LALITHA MOHAN, W/O.C.MOHANDAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (THE CHIEF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 16715 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive steps taken by the
respondent, particularly causing Ext.P4 order to be issued by the
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in an
application by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, whereby
the possession of the building and premises is ordered to be taken over by
appointing an Advocate Commissioner in this regard.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had availed a
loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 2006, which
however could not be repaid on time, by way of regular instalments as
scheduled. When the Bank proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act,
the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court earlier by filing WP(C)
25339/2009 for enabling the petitioner to clear the liability towards the
overdue amount, in respect of the defaulted instalments and to have the
loan account regularised, which led to Ext.P1 judgment. Pursuant to
Ext.P1 verdict, the petitioner effected various payments as borne by
Ext.P2 receipts and the respondent Bank furnished Ext.P3 statement as
ordered by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for proceeding with further steps
2
WP(C) No. 16715/2010
against the petitioner and that the entire outstanding liability, which is
nearly Rs.3,80,500/- as revealed from Ext.P3, will be cleared within no
time. It is pointed out that the petitioner does not intend to challenge the
sustainability of steps taken by the Bank either by approaching the DRT
under Section 17 of the Act or otherwise and the only relief now pressed
before this Court is to permit the petitioner to clear the outstanding liability
by way of three equal monthly instalments.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Bank as well, who
brought to the notice of this Court that a cheque was already issued by the
petitioner in respect of some defaulted instalments, which however was
returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds and this has been
taken note of in Ext.P4 by the learned Magistrate. However, the contention
of the petitioner is that the petitioner does not want to have the loan
account regularised any further and that the prayer is only to give some
breathing time to wipe off the entire liability under the loan transaction.
4. In the above circumstances, particularly with regard to the
limited nature of the prayer, to permit the petitioner to clear the liability in a
phased manner, the petitioner is directed to clear the outstanding liability
by way of ‘three’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be
effected on or before the 30th of June, 2010; to be followed by similar
instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months.
3
WP(C) No. 16715/2010
Subject to this, 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 will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of
the entire amount in a lump sum, by pursuing such steps from the stage
where it stands now. It is also made clear that the petitioner will not be
entitled to get further enlargement of time under any circumstance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc