Renjith K.M vs Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17568 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. 16221 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RENJITH K.M
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O MOHANAN, KAREYAMKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMBILLISERY,
          CHERPU P.O.THRISSUR-680 056.
          BY ADVS.
          JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
          P.H.RIMJU


RESPONDENT:

          TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 87,
          HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, PIN-68001,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          BY ADV DEVAPRASANTH.P.J., 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.16221 OF 2021
                                      2



                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of August 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is the guarantor of the

overdraft facility availed by his mother to the tune of

Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only). The

petitioner as well as his mother/loanee defaulted in

payment of instalments for repayment of that overdraft

facility. As a result, the account of the mother of

the petitioner turned to non performing asset on

30-07-2019. The demand notice under the SARFAESI Act

was issued on 27-08-2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that because of financial crisis, the repayment was

defaulted and now the petitioner wants to clear the

entire loan amount in instalments. He seeks twelve

instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the financial position of the respondent bank,

because of piling of non performing assets, is very bad

and the Reserve Bank of India has already imposed WP(C) NO.16221 OF 2021

restrictions on the respondent bank from granting loan.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent,

therefore submits that the respondent shall keep the

pending action under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance, if

the entire amount is paid in atleast eight monthly

instalments.

5. It is well settled that recovery of loan is a

matter covered by contract between debtor and creditor.

No writ lies for granting instalments for repaying the

amount of loan. However, the respondent is willing to

grant eight instalments to the petitioner for clearing

the amount of loan.

In this view of the matter, the petition is

ordered by directing the petitioner to repay the entire

amount of financial assistance availed by the loanee in

eight successive equated monthly instalments commencing

from 15-09-2021 along with other charges if any.

If this direction is complied with, the

respondent shall keep coercive action under the

SARFAESI Act initiated against petitioner in abeyance.

A single default on the part of petitioner in WP(C) NO.16221 OF 2021

compliance with these directions shall entail the

respondent to continue with the coercive action

initiated against petitioner. No further extension of

time shall be granted to petitioner for compliance with

these directions.

The petition, is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/26/08 WP(C) NO.16221 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF 13(4) NOTICE DATED 26.4.2021 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 1.5.2021 Exhibit P1(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE