IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37756 of 2007(T)
1. A.M. RAMLATH, AGED 53,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF MANAGER,
3. AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH
For Respondent :SRI.SATHISH NINAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 37756 OF 2007 T
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a defaulter to the Bank. By Ext.P1 dated
10/10/2007, petitioner was called upon to regularize her account
within seven days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner has
produced Ext.P2 cover and submits that Ext.P1 was received in
Ext.P2 cover and according to her, from the seals on the postal
department, it is obvious that the letter was received by her only
on 5/11/2007. It is contended that in the meantime, on
2/11/2007, Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued.
2. The contention is that after having given an
opportunity to the petitioner to regularise her loan account and
without allowing her to take advantage of the same within the
WPC 37756/07
:2 :
time permitted in Ext.P1 itself, the Bank has initiated
securitisation proceedings. According to the petitioner, it is only
on account of the premature action on the part of the Bank that
she could not regularize the account.
3. Standing counsel for the Bank on the other hand
submits that petitioner has been a chronic defaulter and in the
past also, she was given similar opportunity. According to the
standing counsel after regularising the account, availing of the
opportunity that was extended, petitioner committed default and
this compelled the Bank to initiate fresh action as per Ext.P3
notice.
4. There is substance in what the counsel for the
petitioner submits. The fact remains that irrespective of the
previous defaults, Bank has extended the petitioner an
opportunity to regularize her account by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 itself
says that she need regularize the account within seven days of
receipt of Ext.P1, which means that she had time atleast to
13/11/2007 since Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner only on
WPC 37756/07
:3 :
7/11/2007. If that be so, Ext.P3 notice under Section 13(2)
issued on 2/11/2007 is premature.
For the aforesaid reasons, I dispose of this writ petition
directing that it will be open to the petitioner to regularise the
account, as she was called upon in Ext.P1, within seven days
from today, in which event, further proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P3 will stand recalled. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails
to regularise the account as above, it will be open to the Bank to
continue action pursuant to Ext.P3.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp