Thameem P vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 6732 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4194 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONERS:

      1        THAMEEM P.
               S/O MUHAMMED KOYA, PUTHAN PEEDIKAYIL,
               AVILORA P.O., KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE-673 572.

      2        MUHAMMED KOYA,
               PUTHAN PEEDIKAYIL, AVILORA P.O.KODUVALLY (VIA),
               KOZHIKODE-673 572.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS
               SMT.ASHLY JAMES

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE MANAGER,
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, KODUVALLY-PALAKUTTY, PVS ARCADE,
               OPP.IOC PETROL PUMP, KOZHIKODE-673 572.

      2        THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAILS ASSETS CENTRAL
               PROCESSING CENTRE, KOZHIKODE, 1ST FLOOR STATE BANK
               BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.), SC
               R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.4194/2021                2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. She argued

that the petitioners had availed a loan of Rs.29 lakhs from the

respondent-Bank. However, because of financial constraints and

difficulties so also due to heavy loss in business caused by

pandemic Covid-19, petitioners failed to remit instalments on

specified dates and therefore, demand notice under the

SARFAESI Act came to be issued. It is submitted that the

petitioners are ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding

amount along with other charges in ten instalments.

2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents

opposed the writ petition by contending that in March 2016,

financial assistance of Rs.29 lakhs was availed by the petitioners

and term of that loan is upto April 2026. However, it was

declared as non-performing asset on 30.10.2019 and since last

one year, there is no repayment by the petitioners. It is

submitted that as on 01.09.2020, the total outstanding amount is

Rs.30,43,209/- and the respondent-Bank is willing to grant four

instalments to the petitioner for clearing this amount.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me. The averments made

by the petitioners that because of financial constraints as well as

huge loss in business caused due to pandemic Covid-19, they

could not remit instalments timely, needs consideration in this

case and therefore, considering the willingness on the part of

respondent-Bank to accept the outstanding amount in

instalments, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of with the

following directions:

The petitioners are directed to clear the entire outstanding

amount in their loan account along with interest and other

charges in ten equated successive monthly instalments

commencing from 01.03.2021. If the petitioners abide by this

direction, then the respondents shall keep the coercive action, if

any, initiated against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act in

abeyance. A single default on the part of petitioners in

compliance with this direction shall entail the respondents to

continue with the coercive action, if any, initiated against the

petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. No further extension of time

for compliance with this direction shall be granted to the

petitioners.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE BANK ON 14.1.2021

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 13 (2) NOTICE NO MORTGAGE TERM LOAN NO 67356897371 DATED 2.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ARYA T IN MC 214/2020 DATED 28.12.2020 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp