IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14189 of 2010(W)
1. MATHEN MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
5. INDUS IND BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS
6. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
7. BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAJESH (AROOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 14189 of 2010-W
----------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner availed two loans from the respondent Bank for
purchasing of two tipper lorries bearing No.KL.29/6964 and KL
29/3170. But the EMI of Rs.20,970/- and Rs.23,000/- in respect of
the vehicles could not be effected on time, under which
circumstances, the Bank proceed with further steps for realisation of
the due amount, invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act,
which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had approached the Bank for statement of accounts; but
in vain. It is stated that the some Civil Suits are pending before the
Munsiff’s Court, Harippad and it is without any regard to the
pendency of the said proceedings, that the Bank took steps for re-
possession of the vehicles with the assistance of the District
Magistrate, Alappuzha, as borne by Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders passed
under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, with
W.P(C) No. 14189 of 2010-W 2
reference to the counter affidavit, submits that the Writ Petition has
been filed absolutely without any merit or bonafides and that the
steps taken against the petitioner are perfectly within the four walls
of law and not assailable under any circumstances. The learned
counsel also submits that the petitioner is a person who is very
much capable of clearing the liability; despite which, he is only
trying to protract things. It is further stated that the total
outstanding liability will come nearly Rs.8,46,265/-; that the
‘overdue’ amount itself will come nearly Rs.4,80,385/- and that
unless and until the petitioner clears the ‘overdue’ amount, there
can’t be any question of regularisation.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that one
more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to clear the
‘overdue’ amount and to have the loan account regularised.
Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to clear the outstanding
liability by way of ‘four’ equal monthly instalments; the first of which
shall be effected on or before the 25th of June, 2010; to be followed
by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 25th of the
succeeding months. This will be over and above the liability of the
petitioner to satisfy the regular EMIs. It is made clear that in case of
W.P(C) No. 14189 of 2010-W 3
any failure to pay the ‘overdue’ amount as above or if any two
consecutive defaults are made in remitting the regular EMIs, the
respondents will be free to proceed with further steps for realisation
of the entire amount in a lump sum including re-possession of the
vehicles, in accordance with law.
5. In view of the wider tenure given to clear the overdue
amount, the petitioner shall strictly adhere to the time schedule and
no petition for enlargement of time will be entertained.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab