Jacob Joseph vs The Kerala State Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5777 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.3821 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               JACOB JOSEPH
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O. JOSEPH, PAKALAMATTOM HOUSE, MANNAMPARAMBU,
               VADAKKANCHERRY P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD

               BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
               (PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED)
               REGIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, P.B NO. 21
               H.P.O ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD 678 001

      2        THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AUTHORISED OFFICER)
               THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, H.P.O
               ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD 678 001

      3        THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
               VADAKKENCHERRY BRANCH, VADAKKANCHERRY P.O, ALATHUR
               PALAKKAD 678 683 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3821 OF 2021(C)

                                    2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has availed an overdraft facility from the

respondents to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/-. The petitioner could not

repay the said amount because of unanticipated financial crisis. The

petitioner is now served with notice under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner is not challenging the steps taken by the secured creditor

under the SARFAESI Act, but the petitioner wants to refund the entire

amount of overdraft facility availed by him along with other dues in

eight equated monthly instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

petition by contending that way back in the year 2018, the petitioner

has availed overdraft facility and has not cared to repay the said

amount in time.

5. Having considered the submissions so advanced and

keeping in mind the willingness on the part of the petitioner to refund

the entire amount due and payable to the respondents, the petition is

disposed of with the following directions. WP(C).No.3821 OF 2021(C)

6. The petitioner to repay the entire outstanding amount of

overdraft facility as well as other dues payable to the respondents in

eight equated monthly installments commencing from 08.03.2021.

If the petitioner follows this direction, then respondents shall

keep in abeyance, further coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI

Act, against the petitioner. A single default in compliance of these

directions shall entail the respondents to continue with the

proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. No further extension of time

shall be granted to the petitioner in complying with this direction.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.3821 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6-2-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT