IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8287 of 2010(I)
1. B.B.SANTHOSHKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN,SC,CANARA BAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 8287 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondent
Bank invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act; for realisation of the
amount stated as due from the petitioner under some loan transactions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the default
was never wilful, nor because of any deliberate negligence, but because of
sudden down fall in the business and that earnest efforts have been taken
to wipe off the entire `overdue’ amount to have regularization of the loan
account.
3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that,
three loans were there, two of which `Term Loans’ and the other one
`ODCC’ given in the year 2007 for a period of one year, which was not
renewed subsequently. Right from the beginning, the petitioner was a
chronic defaulter and that the overdue amount in respect of the two term
loans is stated as about Rs.13 lakhs. The learned counsel submits that,
unless and until the entire `overdue’ amount in respect of the two term
loans is satisfied, the question of regularization is not liable to be
entertained.
4. With regard to the ‘ODCC’ account, the learned counsel
2
WP(C) No. 8287/2010
submits that, eventhough, the said loan is not liable to be regularized, the
tenure having been expired and not renewed, on taking up the matter with
the higher authorities, the Bank is ready to have it regularized on condition
that, the entire outstanding liability of nearly Rs.1.65 lakhs due from the
petitioner in respect of yet another loan (‘KVVES’ business loan) which was
availed on 12.02.2007, agreeing to have it repaid within 36 months; which
is already over is satisfied. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the condition stipulated
by the Bank, asserting that, the petitioner will continue to effect the regular
EMIs without fail.
5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear
the outstanding arrears in respect of the `two term loans’ and the ‘KVVES’
loan of Rs.1.65 lakhs by way of `four’ equal monthly instalments, the first of
which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month, to be followed
by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding
months. On clearing the entire `overdue’ amount, the two term loans will
stand regularized and the petitioner shall continue to effect the regular
EMIs without fail. Simultaneously on clearing the arrears in respect of
‘KVVES’ loan and on submitting an application, satisfying other incidental
formalities as prescribed, the ‘ODCC’ account of the petitioner shall stand
revived. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued
3
WP(C) No. 8287/2010
against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is
made clear that, if any default is committed in satisfying the `overdue’
amount or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the term
loans and if the conditions in connection with the ‘ODCC’ are not satisfied
as aforesaid, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps
for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it
stands now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc