Ruby Sudheer vs The Kerala State Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1504 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1039 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER:

               RUBY SUDHEER
               AGED 36 YEARS
               W/O. SUDHEER, RESIDING AT POTTAYIL VEEDU,
               EDAMUTTAM P.O., EDAMUTTAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
               (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
               BANK), SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM TUDA ROAD,
               KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
               MANAGER.

      2        THE BRANCH MANAGER,
               THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
               (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
               BANK), SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM TUDA ROAD,
               KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 022.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.1039/2021               2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of

mandamus or other directions directing respondents 1 and 2 to

keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 which

is a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. She argued

that the petitioner had availed two loans from the 1 st respondent-

Bank and because of financial crunch, the loan amount could not

be repaid. The overdue amount of loan account can be paid in

instalments and the petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.1

lakh towards regularisation of the loan account. The petitioner is

seeking more than 22 instalments for clearing the overdue amount

of loan.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-

Bank submitted that the overdue amount of loan is Rs.6,22,542/-

and if the petitioner clears the same in seven equated monthly

instalments, then the respondent-Bank is willing to keep the

SARFAESI action in abeyance.

4. Considering the factual situation arising in the instant writ

petition and also the impact of pandemic Covid-19, I am of the

considered opinion that as the term of loan has not expired,

interest of justice would be served if balance is struck between

instalments claimed by the Bank and request made by the

petitioner. In this view of the matter, the following order:

The petitioner to pay overdue amount of loan of

Rs.6,22,542/- in ten equated monthly instalments commencing

from 10.02.2021 along with payment of regular EMIs. Considering

the fact that the discretion in granting instalments is exercised in

the extraordinary situation, the petitioner is estopped from

claiming further extension of time for discharging her liability

towards payment of overdue amount as well as EMIs. If the

petitioner continues to pay equated monthly instalments as

directed along with EMIs, the respondent-Bank shall keep the

SARFAESI proceedings in abeyance. Needless to mention that any

default on the part of the petitioner shall automatically revive the

SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28/12/2020 UNDER SECTION 13(2) R9 OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp