Renimol vs Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4365 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2806 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONERS:

      1        RENIMOL,
               AGED 39 YEARS
               D/O. CHANDRIKA, KULANGARA VAYALIL VEEDU,
               TC 79/2239, ARA-142,
               MAVARATHALA ROAD,
               KARIKAKAM P. O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

      2        SABU,
               AGED 46 YEARS
               S/O. SHIVARAJAN,
               KULANGARA VAYALIL VEEDU,
               TC 79/2239, ARA-142,
               MAVARATHALA ROAD, KARIKAKAM P. O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI. C. DHEERAJ RAJAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KARAMANA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
               KARAMANA BRANCH, KARAMANA P. O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 002.

      2        AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               KARAMANA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
               KARAMANA BRANCH, KARAMANA P. O.,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 002.


               SRI. R. S KALKURA - SC, FOR BANK.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2806 OF 2021

                                   2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

overdue amount was meager that is Rs.3,00,000/- out of which

they have already paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned

counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners

will clear the balance overdue amount in suitable installments.

3. Sri.R.S Kalkura, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents argued that as the petitioners have paid

Rs.1,00,000/- towards overdue amount, the respondents have

already deferred taking of possession.

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion

that, as the petitioners are not challenging any action taken

under the SARFAESI Act and they are willing to repay the

overdue amount, the petition needs to be disposed of with

following direction:-

i. The petitioners to clear entire overdue amount as on WP(C).No.2806 OF 2021

date in five equated monthly installments commencing from 8 th

March, 2021 apart from regular payment of EMIs.

If the petitioners complies with these direction, respondents

shall keep the coercive action in abeyance. In case of a single

default, the respondents shall be entitled to continue with the

coercive action for recovery of loan. Petitioners shall not be

granted any further extension of time for complying this

direction.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.2806 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.