Sreejith vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4646 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.3195 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONER:

              SREEJITH
              AGED 50 YEARS
              S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARIMBIL HOUSE, BEYPORE P.O.,
              KOZHIKODE-673015.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.K.SAJU
              SRI.NIRMALRAJ

RESPONDENT:

              KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (FORMERLY KOZHIKODE
              DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD)
              (FORMERLY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.),
              BEYPORE BRANCH, BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673015,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER / AUTHORIZED
              OFFICER.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3195 OF 2021(Y)

                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner by this petition is praying for regularization of his

loan account by granting him 18 months time for repayment of the

amount and consequentially he is praying for directing the respondent to

withdraw the proceedings taken by them under the SARFAESI Act. The

petitioner is also praying for directing the respondent to re-deliver the

property of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- was taken

by the petitioner from the respondent Bank and the period of loan was

five years. He submitted that due to financial constraints, the petitioner

could not remit the same in installments within the stipulated time and as

such, the loan became overdue. The petitioner is rendered unemployed

due to Covid-19 pandemic.

4. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank

argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued

on 28/08/2017 and in the year 2018, symbolic possession of the secured

asset was taken. On 10.02.2021, physical possession is to be taken as

per the SARFAESI Act and for this purpose, notice is already given by the

Advocate Commissioner.

WP(C).No.3195 OF 2021(Y)

5. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the

respondent Bank is not willing to grant any installments to the petitioner

for paying overdue amount, because the last installment paid by the

petitioner was on 12.03.2018. The overdue amount is Rs.8,05,741/-.

6. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused

the materials placed before me.

7. The petitioner who has taken loan by mortgaging his property

has not paid any installments for repayment of that loan from

13.03.2018. The entire overdue amount of loan as of day is

Rs.8,05,741/-. The petitioner is not in a position to pay this overdue

amount even by the end of March 2021. In this view of the matter, no

case of regularization of the loan is made out by the petitioner. The

consequential action taken by the secured creditor taken under the

SARFAESI Act cannot be challenged in this writ petition in view of

availability of alternate and most efficacious statutory remedy.

In the result, the petition fails and the same is rejected. However

the petitioner is free to avail alternate remedy.

SD/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //TRUE COPY JUDGE PA TO JUDGE// WP(C).No.3195 OF 2021(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER.