Anju T George vs Authorised Officer

Kerala High Court

Anju T George vs Authorised Officer on 29 June, 2022

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                   WP(C) NO. 20661 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

         ANJU T GEORGE
         AGED 28 YEARS
         THADATHIL HOUSE VANIAMPARA P.O. THRISSUR
         DISTRICT, PIN - 680652
         BY ADVS.
         SAIJO HASSAN
         BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
         RAFEEK. V.K.
         P.K.ANTONY
         AATHIRA SUNNY
         N.KRISHNA OZHAKKANAT

RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORISED OFFICER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA
         ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH
         R.S.BUILDINGS OPP.MAHARAJAS COLLEGE GROUND,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011


         ADV.JITHESH MENON, SC


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.20661/2022
                                 2



                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022 The petitioner states that her mother availed a housing loan for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the State Bank of India in the year June 2013. The petitioner stood as a surety. The loan was sanctioned for a period of 20 years.

2. The petitioner's mother has been remitting substantial amounts towards repayment of loan. Subsequently, due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequential financial depression, the remittances were defaulted and the respondent initiated proceedings invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

3. The petitioner states that if she is granted a reasonable time, the entire outstanding arrears can be remitted back. The respondent has put the residential house of the petitioner to auction, as per Ext.P1. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondent be directed to regularize W.P.(C) No.20661/2022 3 the loan account and permit the petitioner to remit the outstanding amount in instalments.

4. The Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner. It is pointed out that since the loan account of the petitioner has already been recalled, there is no question of regularization of loan. The respondent has moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) filing O.A.No.252/2021. In such circumstances, unless the petitioner pays the entire outstanding arrears, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. According to the Standing Counsel, the total outstanding amount from the petitioner is Rs.35,45,728/- as on 17.05.2022.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

6. The request of the petitioner is to permit the petitioner to clear the outstanding arrears and regularize the W.P.(C) No.20661/2022 4 loan account. However, on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the loan account has been recalled and an O.A. No.252/2021 has been filed before the DRT, the respondent cannot be compelled to regularize the loan account of the petitioner.

7. From the pleadings in the writ petition and arguments raised at the Bar, it is seen that the petitioner's mother has been remitting Equated Monthly Instalments earlier. The default was only due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequential financial depression. In the special circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a reasonable time should be granted to the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding amount so as to save the residential house of the petitioner.

8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

(1) The petitioner shall remit the entire outstanding dues along with accruing interest and other charges, if any, W.P.(C) No.20661/2022 5 to the respondent in 12 equal monthly instalments.

(2) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 31.07.2022 and the remaining instalments shall be paid in the ensuing consecutive months.

(3) If the petitioner commits any default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(4) If the petitioner makes remittance as directed above, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner and her mother shall stand deferred.

Sd/-