Aneesh K.P vs Canara Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 11009 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7894 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

               ANEESH K.P.,
               AGED 42 YEARS,
               S/O BALAN,
               THUNDIPARAMBATH,
               ERAMALA (PO), KOZHIKKODE,
               KERALA 673 501.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
               SRI.K.SHAMEER MOHAMMED

RESPONDENTS:

      1        CANARA BANK,
               ORKATTERY BRANCH,
               VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE-673 02,
               REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

      2        BRANCH MANAGER,
               CANARA BANK,
               ORKATTERY BRANCH,
               VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE-673 002.


               R1-2 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7894 OF 2021

                                      2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of April 2021

The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner wants to pay the overdue

amount in instalments and the respondent bank be

directed to grant suitable instalments to the

petitioner.

2. As against this the learned Standing Counsel

appearing to the respondents submits that the entire

loan has been declared as non-performing asset and

accordingly, the demand notice under Section 13(2)

of the SARFAESI Act has been issued. The learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that

the outstanding amount is more than Rs.22.46 Lakhs

and it can be repaid in ten instalments commencing

from 15-04-2021.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is

not agreeable to this proposition.

4. Grant of instalments for regularizing the

loan account is the sole prerogative of the bank. WP(C).No.7894 OF 2021

This Court cannot interfere in such contractual

matter. The petitioner was already having the

facility of repayment as instalments as per the

contract entered into between the parties. The same

could not be honoured resulting in the issuance of

the demand notice. The petitioner can avail

instalments by making appropriate representation to

the bank.

5. So far as challenged to Exhibits P3 and P4

is considered, those are the steps taken by the

secured creditor for enforcement of interest under

the SARFAESI Act. This steps cannot be challenged

before this Court in the right of judgment in the

matter of Authorized Officer, State Bank of

Travancore and another v. Mathews K.C. (2018(1) KLT

784). In this view of the matter the petition is

devoid of merits and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

The petition, is dismissed as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/07/04 WP(C).No.7894 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE EXHIBIT P1 DATED 08/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED EXHIBIT P2 22/03/2019.

THE TRUE COPY OF THE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION EXHIBIT P3 NOTICE DATED 17/12/2020.

THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P4 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER DATED 18/02/2021.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL


SSK                      //TRUE COPY//              PA TO JUDGE