Gregone Miranda vs Authorized Officer, Catholic ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15012 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
       FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 14013 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

1          GREGONE MIRANDA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.JUSA MIRANDA, TC
           78/3361, ASHA HOUSE, SANGHUMUGHOM BEACH POST,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007

2          MRS. ASHA GREGONE, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.GREGONE MIRANDA, TC
           78/3361, ASHA HOUSE, SANGHUMUGHOM BEACH POST,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007

           BY ADV M.S.KIRAN



RESPONDENT/S:

1          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,
           SOUTH KERALA ZONAL OFFICE, MALANKARA BUILDING COMPLEX,
           PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034


2          THE MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, KOWDIAR
           BRANCH, TEMPLE ROAD, AMBALAMUKKU JUNCTION, KOWDIAR,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003

           SMT. LATHA ANANAD - STANDING COUNSEL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14013 OF 2021                 2




                                 JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. The 1st petitioner alongwith his wife (2 nd petitioner) had

availed Casy Cash Loan of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees seventy lakhs

only) from the respondent bank. However, the petitioner could not

repay the amount as per the EMI structure prescribed by the

respondents and accordingly, the loan account was declared as Non

Performing Asset and notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act

came to be issued recently, i.e, on 23.04.2021.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that

petitioners are ready and willing to get the loan account regularised by

clearing the entire overdue amount in six equated monthly

instalments apart from payment of regular EMIs.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that respondent bank had instructed her to limit those

instalments to three.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced and also

perused the materilas placed before me. Notice under Section 13(2)

of the SARFAESI Act is a recent notice dated 23.04.2021. The

petitioners are ready and willing to get the loan account regularised by

clearing the overdue amount in six instalments. It is urged on behalf

of the petitioners that the 1 st petitioner was running recruitment

agency at Sharjah and he has lost his business and was compelled to

return to Kerala because of Covid situation. Because of financial

constraints, the loan could not be repaid regularly. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the instant case and the fact that

respondents are willing to grant instalment facility to the petitioners,

the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:-

The petitioners are directed to clear the entire overdue amount

with interest and other charges, if any, in six equated successive

monthly instalments commencing from 24.08.2021. In addition, the

petitioners should also pay the EMIs regularly. If the petitioners

comply with these directions, respondents shall keep the coercive

action, initiated against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, in

abeyance. In case of a single default, the respondents are at liberty to

continue the action under the SARFAESI Act initiated against the

petitioners. No further extension of time for compliance of this

direction shall be granted to the petitioners.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE

PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS BANK

EXHIBIT P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER'S

ACCOUNT WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR A PERIOD OF 15.01.2016 TO 23.06.2021