Sri. P.T.Mohan Babu vs Central Bank Of India on 19 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26718 of 2008(E)


1. SRI. P.T.MOHAN BABU, AGED 58 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MRS. SERU MOHAN BABU, AGED 53 YEARS

                        Vs



1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (REGIONAL MANAGER

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.RAJA

                For Respondent  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :19/09/2008

 O R D E R
         Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
        ==================================
              W.P.(C)No.26718 of 2008
        ==================================
     Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008.


                     JUDGMENT

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondents, I am satisfied that there is no

jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the

impugned proceedings. Learned counsel for the bank

points out that the loan, as originally availed,

was re-scheduled twice and the present arrears have

accumulated and it would not be commercially

feasible for the bank to re-schedule the

transaction or to extend any facility further. I

do not find any justifiable ground to direct the

bank to re-schedule the transaction or to extend

any facility other than to provide a breathing time

to pay off the outstandings.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances,

WPC26718/08

-:2:-

repelling all other contentions, this writ petition

is ordered directing that if the petitioner makes a

down payment of Rs.10 lakhs within one month from

now and remits the remaining amounts in monthly

instalments of Rs.10 lakhs, payable on or before

the last working day of every month, commencing

from November, 2008, distress action will stand

dropped. This is as a last chance and it is also

clarified that in view of the directions and the

fact that the challenge against the proceedings

have been repelled, the petitioner will not be

entitled to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal under

the SARFAESI Act. It is also further clarified

that this judgment will not stand in the way of the

petitioner working out any other arrangement with

the bank.

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.

sl.