Vinil John vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5377 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.25611 OF 2020(B)


PETITIONER:

               VINIL JOHN
               AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O.LATE JOHN.M.I., MANJILA HOUSE, NADATHARA P.O.,
               THRISSUR-680 571.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.C.A.CHACKO
               SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               HEAD OFFICE, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., SIB HOUSE, TB
               ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

      2        THE CHIEF MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
               REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.3868, TRICHY ROAD, SUNGAM,
               COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641 018.

      3        THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
               BELLADI BRANCH, 2/285-G, CHINNATHOTTIPALAYAM, VIA
               KARAMADAI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADEU-641 104.

      4        THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
               BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

               R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL SHANKER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25611 OF 2020(B)

                                  2

                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner

has taken cash credit facility of Rs.1.40 crores from the respondent

Bank for running his jewelry shop on 09/10/2018. It is further argued

that because of acquisition proceedings initiated by the National

Highway Authorities, the petitioner has to shift his business to some

other place. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

subsequently the petitioner had to undergo major surgery and

because of pandemic Covid-19, he suffered financial crunch and

therefore, he is not in a position to pay the amount due to the

respondent in lumpsum. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner be granted 20 installments for refund of

the amount by showing leniency. During the course of argument, the

learned counsel for the petitioner further reduced the quantum of

installments to 15.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on the

statement filed on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the

request for installments made by the petitioner. He argued that primary

security for refund of cash credit facility was gold ornaments. With WP(C).No.25611 OF 2020(B)

passage of time, the petitioner has disposed of the entire stock of gold

and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents,

the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency in this matter. The

learned counsel for the respondent argued that if the petitioner

refunds the entire amount in six equated installments, the respondent

Bank is willing to get the account settled.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me.

5. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has diverted the entire assets

hypothecated to the respondent Bank, including the gold, without

informing the respondent - Bank. During the course of arguments, the

learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the fact that as of now,

there is no stock of gold with the petitioner, but according to her, the

mortgaged assets are costing more than 3 crores. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will clear off the entire

dues, if facility of installment is granted to him. In this view of the

matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction.

6. The petitioner to clear the entire outstanding amount due

and payable to the respondents in ten equated monthly installments

commencing from 22.02.2021. In case of a single default in

repayment of installments, respondent shall continue with the WP(C).No.25611 OF 2020(B)

proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. However, if the

installments are being paid regularly, these proceedings are to be kept

in abeyance. No further extension of time for complying with these

directions shall be granted to the petitioner.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.25611 OF 2020(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.01.2018 ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, COIMBATORE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.07.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.09.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED FROM SOUTH INDIAN BANK.