IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19966 of 2008(B)
1. PANDURANGA PAI.H., AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :24/07/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.19966 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner availed of a housing loan from the 1st
respondent bank. The petitioner committed default in repayment.
Therefore, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, which is under challenge in this writ
petition. The petitioner submits that this is only a housing loan
and only because of the circumstances beyond the control of the
petitioner that he was unable to pay some of the instalments of
repayment of loan. He would submit that he is prepared to pay
the entire defaulted loan amounts together with interest and
costs and that he would pay future instalments on the due dates
as per the original loan agreement without any further default
and on that condition, the respondents may be directed to
regularise the loan account and permit the petitioner to pay the
balance instalments as per the loan agreement.
2. This is stoutly opposed by the standing counsel for the
bank. He would submit that once the account is classified as NPA,
thereafter, the account cannot be directed to be regularised. He
w.p.c.19966/08 2
also submits that the petitioner being a defaulter, he cannot
dictate terms and in so far as the bank has done everything
legally in accordance with the provisions of the Act, this Court
cannot interfere with the action taken by them.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. I am of opinion that the bank should not take such a
rigid attitude especially on the face of a very harsh and
unrelenting legislation. The loan in question is only a house
building advance. The bank should show some more leniency in
the matter in view of the extenuating circumstances instead of
insisting on their pound of flesh. The fact that the account has
been classified as a NPA, cannot stand in the way of giving such
concession to deserving borrowers. In this case, default is only
from 17.8.2006 onwards. In the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the respondents can make an exception in permitting
the petitioner to regularise the loan account by permitting the
petitioner to regularize loan account by paying the defaulted
instalments with interest and the costs incurred by the bank in
the course of the proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, this
writ petition is disposed of as follows:
w.p.c.19966/08 3
It is submitted that amount sufficient to cover the defaulted
instalments has already been paid by the petitioner. The
petitioner shall pay the balance amount, if any, to make up the
defaulted instalments with interest and costs incurred by the
bank in the proceedings under the Act, within two weeks from
today after ascertaining the amount from the bank. Thereafter,
the petitioner shall continue to pay the instalments of
prepayment of loan as per the loan agreement on the due dates
without default. If the petitioner complies with the above
directions strictly, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept
in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay the balance
amount necessary to cover the defaulted instalments with
interest and costs, or the petitioner commits default in payment
of any one instalment as per the loan agreement, it would be
open to the respondents to continue the proceedings as now
initiated without having to issue no fresh notice or proceedings in
that regard.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.19966/08 4