Sunny Thomas vs State Bank Of Travancore on 16 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35835 of 2008(N)


1. SUNNY THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS AGED
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MERCYKUTTY SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY THOMAS
3. ANNAMMA THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS,

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,

3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

4. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/01/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.35835 of 2008
              ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Ext.P6 order is under challenge.

2. By this order, application made by the petitioners for the

benefit of Debt Relief Scheme announced by the Government of India

and implemented by the Bank has been rejected. Reason stated is

that the loan availed of by the petitioners is not an agricultural loan.

3. It was taking into account the case of the petitioners that

the loan availed of by the petitioners was an agricultural loan, this

Court directed the Bank to file a statement producing a copy of the

loan agreement and loan application. Accordingly, the Bank has filed

statement and documents have been produced. On perusal of the

documents, it is revealed that the loan availed of was a term loan

and not an agricultural loan. If that be so, the rejection of the

petitioners’ request by Ext.P6 cannot be faulted.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that in pursuance to the decree obtained by the Bank, the

mortgaged property is kept for sale. Therefore, the learned counsel

WP(C) No.35835/2008
-2-

seeks a reasonable time to discharge the liability, so that the sale

could be avoided.

5. I heard both sides and taking into account the

submissions made, it is directed that the Bank will give the

petitioners two months time from today, so that the petitioners will

be in a position to discharge the liability, failing which the Bank can

sell the mortgaged property.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg