Juthin Maryson vs Authorised Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7947 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.5929 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

               JUTHIN MARYSON
               AGED 29 YEARS
               S/O. MARYSON, MARY SADANAM, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM-
               691511.

               BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        AUTHORISED OFFICER,
               QUILON CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO. D 960,
               CHANDANATHOPPU BRANCH, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-
               691014.

      2        QUILON CO -OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO. D 960,
               HEAD OFFICE, YMCA ROAD, KOLLAM,-691001, REPRESENTED
               BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

      3        THE BRANCH MANAGER,
               QUILON CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO. D 960,
               CHANDANATHOPPU BRANCH, CHANDANATHOPU P.O., KOLLAM-
               691014.



               SC- SMT. RENU.D.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5929 OF 2021(M)

                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the

petitioner had availed business loan for Rs. 18 lakhs from the 3 rd

respondent in the year 2016 and the term of that loan has not yet

expired. It is the case of the petitioner that he is doing vegetable

business for running livelihood of his family and EMI of that loan was

Rs.34,109/-. Because of Covid-19 pandemic, business of the petitioner

suffered, and as such he could not repay the EMIs regularly resulting

in declaring his loan as non-performing asset. The learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to

clear the entire overdue amount in 12 instalments along with payment

of usual EMIs. However, according to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, considering nature of his business, reasonable amount be

directed to be paid in instalments for regularization of the loan.

2. The learned counsel who takes notice for the respondents,

argued that on 27/03/2019, a financial assistance of Rs.18 lakhs was

availed by the petitioner for the purpose of business and the term of

that loan is up to 27.03.2029. It is further argued that the overdue

amount as on dated is about Rs.5,98,422/- and the physical

possession of the secured asset is being taken on 16.03.2021. With WP(C).No.5929 OF 2021(M)

this, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that if the

petitioner remits 1/3rd of the overdue amount by the end of March

2021 and if he pays balance amount in 6 instalments apart from

payment of EMIs, the respondents shall consider the request of the

petitioner to keep the coercive action in abeyance.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and also

perused the materials placed before me. The petitioner is doing a

business of vending vegetables. Undisputedly, Covid-19 pandemic has

affected people at large and each and every business. It is clear from

the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that the

respondents are interested in recovery of the amount of the financial

assistance availed by the petitioner. Hence, in the facts and

circumstances of the instant case, the petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

The petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

respondents by the end of March 2021 towards discharge of his

liability towards overdue amount of the loan. He should pay balance

overdue amount along with interest and charges in 12 equated

monthly instalments commencing from 19.04.2021. In addition, the

petitioner should also pay EMIs regularly. If the petitioner complies

with these directions, the respondents shall keep the pending action WP(C).No.5929 OF 2021(M)

under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance. A single default in compliance

with this direction shall entail the respondents to continue with the

action initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner shall not be

granted any further extension of time for complying with this direction.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE Nsd

//true copy//

PA to Judge WP(C).No.5929 OF 2021(M)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH PAID RECEIPT DATED 07/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/02/2021.

EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC 230/2020 OF CJM, KOLLAM.