High Court Kerala High Court

Jayesh V.Joseph vs The Authorised Officer on 21 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jayesh V.Joseph vs The Authorised Officer on 21 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15713 of 2010(L)


1. JAYESH V.JOSEPH, AGED 32, S/O.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :21/05/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                    --------------------------------------------
                     WP(C) NO. 15713 OF 2010
                    --------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the

Kanjiramkulam branch of the Bank in the year 2000 creating security

interest over the property in question, but the liability could not be satisfied

by remitting the due instalments on time; under which circumstance, it is

stated that the Bank is proceeding with further steps under the SARFAESI

Act after declaring the account as NPA; which forms the subject matter of

challenge in the Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is a plumber. He lost his job in the Gulf and had to return to

Kerala. It is stated that the petitioner is taking every earnest effort to see

that the entire balance is cleared at the earliest simultaneously; adding

that the default was never willful but because of some unforeseen

circumstances.

3. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner is

a chronic defaulter and the outstanding liability was nearly 2.45 lakhs as

on 27.10.2007, as borne by Ext.P2. This by itself shows that the petitioner

was not at all anxious in having the liability cleared on time and that the

alleged loss of employment and return to the home state in 2010 is a not a

ground to challenge the steps taken by the respondent in accordance with

2
WP(C) No. 15713/2010

law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only

relief now pressed before this Court is that the petitioner may be permitted

to clear the liability by way of reasonable instalments, stating that the

petitioner does not intend to proceed with the challenge against the steps

being taken under SAFAESI Act in this Writ Petition or by resorting to the

statutory remedy by approaching the DRT.

5. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is permitted to clear

the entire outstanding liability by way of `six’ equal monthly instalments, the

first of which shall be effected on or before the 15th of June, 2010, to be

followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 15th of the

succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as

being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made

clear that, if any default is made by the petitioner as above, the respondent

will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire

amount in a lump sum.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc