Majeed Perinda vs South Indian Bank Limited ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5268 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER/S:

                MAJEED PERINDA,
                AGED 55 YEARS,
                S/O.MAMMED, AMINA MANZIL, ILLAM MOOLA, PAZHASSI
                AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR, PIN-
                670702.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
                SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
                SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL
                SHRI.JITHIN S SUNDARAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED THRISSUR,
                MATTANNUR BRANCH,
                REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF
                THE BANK, THE MANGER, MATTANNUR BRANCH,
                P.O.MATTANNUR, PIN-670702.

      2         AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
                INDIAN BANK LIMITED,
                REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN-670001.

                R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL SHANKER
                R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021

                                             2

                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued

that, petitioner had taken a cash credit facility for

running his business in the name and style M/s.

Kitchen Queen at Iritty town. He further argued

that, on account of heavy flood in the year 2018, his

shop was inundated and the entire stock was damaged.

He was forced to close down his unit. Since then,

the petitioner is doing some other business, but that

also by taking loan. Learned Counsel for the

petitioner argued that, the petitioner further

suffered financial crunch due to the outbreak of

Covid-19 pandemic and as of such, he can repay the

cash credit facility taken by him, at the most, in 12

equated successive monthly instalments. Learned

Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the

petitioner is not challenging either his liability or

the action initiated by the respondents under the WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021

SARFAESI Act.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents on

instructions submitted that, as on 08.02.2021, the

outstanding loan amount is Rs.49,17,300/-(Rupees

Forty Nine Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred

only). It is further argued by learned Counsel for

the respondents that the respondents shall keep the

action under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance, if the

entire amount due and payable to the respondents is

repaid by the petitioner in six equated monthly

instalments.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced

and also perused the material placed before me

including the duly sworn testimony of the petitioner

reflected from the petition.

5. Petitioner is a business man. It is revealed

from the facts in the petition that the shop of the

petitioner namely "Kitchen Queen" was inundated due

to heavy flood in the Iritti town in the year 2018

and the entire stock was damaged. It is a matter of

common knowledge that, subsequently, there was WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021

outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, which ultimately

resulted in nation wide lock down. Petitioner is

willing to repay the entire amount outstanding in his

account. He wants 12 instalments, whereas the

respondents are willing to keep the coercive action

in abeyance if the petitioner refunds the entire

amount in six monthly instalments. Considering the

financial crunch suffered by the petitioner due to

outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic as well as the flood in

the year 2018, in my considered opinion, petition

deserves to be disposed of with the following

directions:

i) Petitioner to clear the entire amount outstanding in his account and payable to respondents in 12 equated successive monthly instalments commencing from 26.02.2021.

ii) If the petitioner abides by this direction, the respondents shall keep the coercive action initiated by them against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance.

WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021

iii) A single default on the part of the petitioners shall entitle the respondents to continue with the coercive action under the SARFAESI Act.

iv) As the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for 12 equated monthly instalments has been accepted by this Court, no further extension of time shall be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

uu

12.2.2021 WP(C).No.2868 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE BANK.

EXHIBIT P1(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1 NOTICE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.12.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 8(1) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.