Kerala High Court
The Chief Manager vs Nisha George on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
RP.NO.193/2020 IN WP(C).NO.28613/2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.28613/2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER 1 TO 3:
1 THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, LMS
COMPOUND, OPPOISTE, MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS
BHAVAN.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695003
2 ASSISTNAT GENERAL MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY
BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, LMS COMPOUND OPPOSITE MUSEUM
WEST GATE VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695033
3 MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
MUSEUM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
NISHA GEORGE,
W/O.RENJI THOMAS EAPEN, KACHUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
THELIYOOR.P.O, VENNIKULAM, THIRUVANNA NOW RESIDING
AT FLAT NO.112, AL FUTTAIM HOUSING COMPLEX NEAR
SHEIKH RASHID COLONY, DOHA ROAD, QUSAIS-I, DUBAI,
UAE, REPRESENTED THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER TOMS K GEORGE AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE
K.T.GEORGE, KOLANJIKOMBIL HOUSE, KOLABHAGOM.P.O,
THADIYOOR, THOTTAPUHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689101
ADVS. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
SRI.P.HARIDAS,SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN,
SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN,SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN,
SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 193 of 2020
(arising out of the judgment dated 28.1.2020 in
WP(C) No. 28613 of 2019 )
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
ORDER
Heard Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for the
review petitioner/respondents in the WP(C) (State Bank of India) and
Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the
review petition/petitioner in the WP(C).
2. The submissions made by Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioner/respondents in the WP(C) (State
Bank of India) are recorded in para 3 of the impugned judgment dated
28.1.2020 in WP(C) No.28613/2019, and the same reads as follows:
" 3. Sri.R.S. Kalkura, learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents State Bank of India would submit on the basis of instructions
that the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the interim order
dated 26/10/2019 by remitting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
respondent Bank, and after remitting the said amount, the total outstanding
dues to be cleared by the petitioner as on 28/11/2019 is Rs.24,97,052/- and
that thereafter, petitioner has made payment of an amount of around
Rs.71,000/- and further that the loan transaction has been classified as a
non-performing asset as early as in the year 2017 and that the loan has
already been recalled by the respondent State Bank of India and that the
respondent Bank has been trying to take possession of the subject property
for quiet some time and under these circumstances,the respondent Bank is
not in a position to take steps for regularizing the loan account and that the
respondent Bank is still prepared to give the petitioner one last opportunity
to clear the total outstanding dues in 6 equal monthly installments, the first
of which shall be payable on or before 29/02/2020 and the next 5 shall be
payable on or before the last day of the month concerned subject to stringent
default conditions."
R.P. No. 193/2020 in
WP(C) No.28613/2019
..3..
3. Hence it can be seen from a reading of para 3 of the
impugned judgment that the review petitioner/respondents
in the WP(C) (State Bank of India) were of the clear stand that
there is no question of regularizing the loan account inasmuch
as the loan account was already recalled by the bank, and further
that the bank is prepared to give only one last opportunity to
the writ petitioner to clear the total outstanding dues in
6 equal monthly instalments, subject to which the loan
account be closed.
4. In para 4 of the impugned judgment the writ petitioner
has undertaken that she is fully agreeable to the terms and
conditions stipulated by the State Bank as recorded in para 3 of
the impugned judgment.
5. Para 5 of the impugned judgment contains the
directions and the same reads as follows:
"5. Accordingly the following directions and orders are passed.
(i) The competent official of the respondent Bank shall immediately
furnish a comprehensive and authenticated statement of accounts
pertaining to the loan transaction in question showing the precise
details thereof and the total dues to be cleared by the borrower as
on the date of issuance of the said statement.
(ii) The petitioner will clear the entire overdues in 6 equal monthly
instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before
29/02/2020 and the next 5 shall be payable on or before the last
day of the month concerned. Further it is ordered that the
R.P. No. 193/2020 in
WP(C) No.28613/2019
..4..
petitioner shall pay all the applicable charges and interest
thereon and should also clear regular EMIs in time.
(iii) In case the petitioner complies with all the abovesaid conditions
and clears the entire dues as aforestated, then the respondent
bank may take necessary steps to ensure that the loan account of
the petitioner is regularised and until then further steps pursuant
to the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance by the
respondent-Bank.
(iv) On the other hand, if the petitioner commits default of any one of
the instalments, then the benefit of the abovesaid directions will
stand automatically vacated without any further orders of this
Court, in which case, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed
further with the impugned steps from the stage where it has
stopped. In such an eventuality it is also ordered that the
petitioner will have to give up all her contentions that are
otherwise available to her to be raised in appropriate proceedings
before the competent fora"
6. A reading of para 5 of the impugned judgment would
clearly show that directions 2 & 3 thereof are clearly erroneous
inasmuch as, this Court has held therein that subject to fulfillment
of conditions therein the loan account will be regularized, etc. This
is so as the bank has stated in clear terms that there is no question
of regularizing loan account and what is being offered is only a last
opportunity to the writ petitioner to clear the entire outstanding
dues so as to close the loan account.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that directions 2 & 3 in para 5
of the impugned judgment will stand recalled and rescinded and
directions 2 & 3 in para 5 of the impugned judgment will stand
substituted and modified as follows:
R.P. No. 193/2020 in
WP(C) No.28613/2019
..5..
(ii) The writ petitioner will clear the total dues in 6 equal
monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on
or before 15.3.2021 and the next 5 instalments shall be
payable on or before the 15th day of each successive
months. Further it is ordered that the writ petitioner
shall pay all the applicable charges as well. The said
direction will include all outstanding dues inclusive of
interests.
(iii) In case the petitioner complies with all the abovesaid
conditions and clears the total dues in 6 equal monthly
instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before
15.3.2021 etc, then the respondent bank may take
necessary steps to ensure that the loan account of the
petitioner is duly closed and the further steps pursuant
to the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance
by the respondent bank.
8. It is made clear that all the other directions including
direction No.1 and the default clause of direction No.4 will
stand intact. For the sake of clarity, it is ordered that para 5 of the
impugned judgment will stand modified and substituted as
follows:
(i) The competent official of the respondent Bank
shall immediately furnish a comprehensive and
authenticated statement of accounts pertaining to the
loan transaction in question showing the precise details
R.P. No. 193/2020 in
WP(C) No.28613/2019
..6..
thereof and the total dues to be cleared by the borrower
as on the date of issuance of the said statement.
(ii) The writ petitioner will clear the total dues in 6 equal
monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on
or before 15.3.2021 and the next 5 instalments shall be
payable on or before the 15th day of each successive
months. Further it is ordered that the writ petitioner
shall pay all the applicable charges as well. The said
direction will include all outstanding dues inclusive of
interests.
(iii) In case the petitioner complies with all the abovesaid
conditions and clears the total dues in 6 equal monthly
instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before
15.3.2021 etc, then the respondent bank may take
necessary steps to ensure that the loan account of the
petitioner is duly closed and the further steps pursuant
to the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance
by the respondent bank.
(iv) On the other hand, if the petitioner commits default of
any one of the instalments, then the benefit of the
abovesaid directions will stand automatically vacated
without any further orders of this Court, in which case,
the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further with
the impugned steps from the stage where it has
stopped. In such an eventuality it is also ordered that
R.P. No. 193/2020 in
WP(C) No.28613/2019
..7..
the petitioner will have to give up all her contentions
that are otherwise available to her to be raised in
appropriate proceedings before the competent fora"
The impugned judgment in the WP(C) will stand modified as
above.
With these observations and directions, the above Review
Petition will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
MMG
