IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13442 of 2010(E)
1. SANTHOSH, PUTHEN VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
For Petitioner :SRI.PRATHEESH.P
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 13442 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 6th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 5.5 lakhs from the respondent
Bank on 26.2.2008, on the strength of the security interest created over
the property in question, agreeing to repay the liability by way of sixty
equal monthly installments. However, the petitioner remitted only the
first installment, under which circumstance, the account was declared
as ‘NPA’ and the Bank proceeded with the steps under SARFAESI Act,
including by filing Ext.P1 petition before the concerned Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, under Section 14 of the Act, for rendering
necessary assistance to take physical possession of the property,
which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 20.4.2010, the
coercive proceedings were intercepted, on condition that, the petitioner
deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- within three weeks, which period was
subsequently enlarged on filing I.A. No. 8012 of 2010, allowed on
22.6.2010. The learned counsel submits that the condition imposed by
this Court has been complied with.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank
submits, with reference to the contents of the statement filed on behalf
W.P. (C) No. 13442 of 2010
: 2 :
of the respondents 1 and 2, that the petitioner was a chronic defaulter,
having admittedly repaid only the first installment followed by the
payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs, pursuant to the interim order By virtue of the
nature and Scheme of the loan extended to the petitioner, the
respondent Bank is stated as not in a position to regularize the loan
account.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner is taking every earnest efforts to see that the entire liability
towards the Bank is wiped off within the shortest possible time and that
the petitioner may be given some breathing in this regard, by providing
some reasonable installments. The learned counsel also submits that
the petitioner does not intend to challenge the sustainability of the steps
taken by the Bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
5. Taking note of the particular facts and circumstances, this
Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to have the liability
wiped off in a phased matter. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to
clear the entire outstanding liability, which is stated as more than Rs. 6
lakhs as on date, by way of ‘8’ equal monthly installments; the first of
which shall be paid on or before the 30th of July, 2010; to be followed by
similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the
succeeding months. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings stated as
W.P. (C) No. 13442 of 2010
: 3 :
being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, for the
time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in
effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty
to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump
sum.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd