Sajith Kumar N.K vs General Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 7948 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.5890 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

               SAJITH KUMAR N.K.
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O.KUMARAN, NADUVILA KANDIYIL HOUSE, MEPPAYIL P.O.,
               VADAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 104.

               BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        GENERAL MANAGER, VADAKARA CO-OPERATIVE
               URBAN BANK LTD., NUT STREET P.O., VADAKARA,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 102.

      2        AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               VADAKARA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., REP. NUT
               STREET P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 102.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. DEVAPRASANTH.P.J, SC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5890/2021              2


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

counsel argued that the petitioner had availed loan of Rs.10 lakhs

from the respondent-Bank in the year 2017 and till now, he has

repaid an amount of Rs.7.30 lakhs. However, because of

pandemic Covid-19, the petitioner could not take steps to repay

the loan and that is how coercive steps are being taken by

respondents for recovery of the said loan.

2. Learned Standing Counsel, after taking notice on behalf

of respondents, submits that as the loan was declared non-

performing asset, steps under the SARFAESI Act were taken and

on 01.03.2021, notice for taking symbolic possession was issued.

According to the learned Standing Counsel, the overdue amount

as of now is about Rs.3,40,386/-and term of the loan is upto year

2028. It is further argued that the respondent-Bank is interested

in recovery of loan and the petitioner must pay at least 1/3 rd of

the outstanding overdue amount and the balance can be paid by

him in instalments.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

petitioner is not challenging the steps taken by the secured

creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The respondents are also

interested in effecting recovery and therefore, this writ petition is

disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh by the end of

March 2021 in order to discharge his liability towards overdue

amount. He should pay the balance overdue amount with interest

and other charges in 10 equated successive monthly instalments

commencing from 19.04.2021. In addition, the petitioner should

regularly pay the EMIs. If the petitioner complies with these

conditions, respondents should keep coercive action under the

SARFAESI Act in abeyance. A single default in compliance with

these directions shall entail respondents to continue with the

action under the SARFAESI Act. No further extension of time to

comply with this judgment shall be granted to the petitioner.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp