Krishnamani.E vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5780 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.3539 OF 2021(N)


PETITIONER:

              KRISHNAMANI.E
              AGED 62 YEARS
              S/O. VELU, IRUKOOTHU HOUSE, PULAMANTHOL VILLAGE,
              PERINTHALMANNA P.O, MALAPPURAM - 679323.

              BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

RESPONDENT:

              THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
              DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-
              OPERATIVE BANK, MALAPPURAM - 676505.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SC-SRI.ESM KABEER

     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.3539 OF 2021(N)

                                      2

                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

petitioner has availed overdraft facility in the year 2013 and the

balance amount payable to the respondent is about Rs.31,00,000/-. It

is argued that the petitioner is willing to repay the loan in suitable

instalments.

3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent

argued that the overdraft facility was taken on 03.05.2016 for a period

of twelve months. However, the same is not renewed and after the

year 2017, the petitioner has not paid anything to the respondent.

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, by the end of

December 2020, the outstanding amount was more than

Rs.31,84,000/-. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent

that now the possession notice is issued and the secured creditor is

intending to take possession of the secured asset. He, however,

submits that if a substantial amount is paid by the end of March 2021,

then the respondent may consider keeping the SARFAESI action in

abeyance.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and WP(C).No.3539 OF 2021(N)

perused the possession notice at Ext.P1. Keeping in mind the

submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, regarding

keeping the action under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance as well as the

fact that the outstanding amount is more than Rs.31,00,000/-, the

petition is disposed of with the following direction.

5. If the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by

the end of March 2021 towards repayment of the loan and other

charges outstanding against him and if he further deposits the entire

balance amount of loan and other charges in eight equated monthly

instalments commencing from 12.04.2021, then the respondent shall

keep the action under the SARFAESI Act initiated against the petitioner

in abeyance.

A single default in compliance with this direction shall entail the

respondent to continue with the SARFAESI Action. No further

extension of time for complying with this direction shall be granted to

the petitioner.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.3539 OF 2021(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION OF 13(2) OF SECURITISATION ACT DATED 21.01.20201.