Sarakutty E.U. vs Ernakulam District Co-Operative … on 12 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23045 of 2010(E)


1. SARAKUTTY E.U., ENCHAKKALAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

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

 Dated :12/08/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 3 lakhs from the

respondent Bank in the year 2002, creating security interest over the

property in question. But, the repayments were not all prompt and the

petitioner turned to be a defaulter, under which circumstances, the

Bank proceeded with further steps under the SARFAESI Act, after

declaring the account as ‘NPA’, which is under challenge in this Writ

Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, with

reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits that, averments and

allegations raised in the Writ Petition do not keep right track of truth. It

is stated that, much leniency has already been extended to the

petitioner, in spite of which, the petitioner has not effectively utilized the

same. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner was even given

the benefit of ‘OTS’ but the petitioner did not choose to honour the

commitment in clearing the arrears; simultaneously adding that the

steps taken by the Bank are strictly in conformity with the relevant

provisions of law. It is stated that, the outstanding liability of the

W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010
: 2 :

petitioner is Rs. 5,35,653/-, out of which Rs. 3,01,336/ is in respect of

the defaulted EMIs.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen

circumstances, involving the treatment expenses incured in connection

the with the ailment of the petitioner himself and that alternate

arrangements are being made so as to wipe off the entire liability. It is

stated that, the petitioner does not intend to press the contentions

raised in the Writ Petition or in Annexure R1 (a) lawyer notice,

produced along with the counter affidavit of the respondents. The

learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner also does not intend

to avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act

and that the limited relief sought for is to grant the benefit of

installments so as to wipe off the entire liability.

4. Taking note of the submissions raised from either side and

also considering the fact that the loan availed by the petitioner is in

‘housing sector’, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner

to clear the entire liability by way of ‘ten’ equal monthly installments; the

first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month; to be

followed by similar installments to be effected or before the 30th of the

succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated

W.P. (C) No. 23045 of 2010
: 3 :

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

also made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in

satisfying the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to

proceed with further steps, for realization of the entire amount in lump

sum, from the stage where it stands now.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd