P.Vasantha vs The Manager,(Authorised ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17557 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
      THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 17174 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

           P.VASANTHA
           AGED 50 YEARS
           W/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT RAMACHADRA VILASAM,
           MANAKKALA, VAZHICHAL P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125

           BY ADV THIRUMALA P.K.MANI



RESPONDENT/S:

           THE MANAGER,(AUTHORISED OFFICER), NEYYATTINKARA CO-
           OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED NO.931, NEYYATTINKARA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121




           SRI.R.T.PRADEEP,STANDING COUNSEL




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17174 OF 2021                      2



                                  JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.7,45,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and

forty five thousand only) from the respondent and he defaulted in

repayment of the loan which has resulted in taking action under the

SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner wants to repay the overdue amount for getting the loan

regularised .

3. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank

submits that because of piling of the Non Performing Assets of the

respondent bank, the Reserve Bank of India has estopped the respondent

bank from advancing loan to the persons desirous of availing credit facility.

It is further submitted that now the advocate commissioner is taking

possession of the secured asset by the end of this month and if the

petitioner clears the overdue amount in two instalments, then the

respondent is willing to keep the coercive action in abeyance.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

respondent is willing to grant facility of instalments to the petitioner for

clearing the overdue amount. The petitioner is seeking atleast five

instalments whereas according to the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, keeping in mind the financial condition of the respondent bank,

five instalments cannot be granted. In this view of the matter and keeping

in mind the fact that the respondent bank is also willing to grant facility of

instalment to the petitioner for clearing the overdue amount, the writ

petition is ordered thus:-

The petitioner is directed to clear the entire overdue amount with

interest and other charges in four equated successive monthly instalments

commencing from 31.08.2021. In addition, the petitioner should also pay

the EMIs regularly. If the petitioner complies with these directions,

respondent shall keep the coercive action, initiated against the petitioner

under the SARFAESI Act, in abeyance. In case of a single default, the

respondent is at liberty to continue the action under the SARFAESI Act

initiated against the petitioner. No further extension of time for compliance

of this direction shall be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17174/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT IN MC NO.41/2021 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEPUTING THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER