Salma M Basheer vs State Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 18297 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
    TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 4515 OF 2021
PETITIONER :

          SALMA M BASHEER
          AGED 44 YEARS
          W/O. SHIHABUDHEEN HAMEED, ISHAS, EDAVA P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 311.

          BY ADV J.S.AJITHKUMAR



RESPONDENTS :

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER OPPOSITE LMS COMPOUND,
          VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    2     THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
          STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC, KAAZHAKOOTAM, LAZAR
          SQUARE, NEAR KULANGARA SRI. KRISHNA TEMPLE,
          KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582

    3     THE BRANCH MANAGER,
          STATE BANK OF INDIA, EDAVA BRANCH, EDAVA P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 311

    4     SMT. SARITHA BABU S,
          ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, FIRST FLOOR,
          MAHARANI BUILDING, VANCHIYOOR P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035

          BY ADV SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4515 OF 2021
                                    2


                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                        W.P.(C).No.4515 of 2021
                     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this the 7th day of September, 2021


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner and her husband had availed a housing loan

of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) from the 1 st

respondent in May, 2015 and had mortgaged their property. Even

though the loan was for a period of 20 years, it is alleged that from

October, 2019 onwards, petitioner started committing default. As on

date, the overdue amount runs into more than Rs.1.5 lakhs. The

actual overdue amount is in dispute as of now. Petitioner seeks an

indulgence to remit the overdue amounts in monthly instalments and

also seeks direction for regularising the account.

2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in

Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v.

Mathew K.C. [2018 (3) SCC 85], this Court cannot interfere once

the proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have

been initiated.

3. It is pointed out by Adv.R.S.Kalkura, the learned

counsel for the respondent Bank that the possession of the property WP(C) NO. 4515 OF 2021

has already been taken over through Ext.P1 and in view of the same,

this Court ought not to interfere by giving specific directions.

4. Adv.J.S.Ajithkumar, on the other hand submits that the

precarious situation of the petitioners caused the default in

repayment of the loan and in view of the pandemic situation which

subsists even now, till that subsides, all efforts of the petitioner to

clear the loan would be futile. It is in such circumstances that he

seeks for an indulgence of this Court and of the first respondent to

clear the overdue amount and to regularise the loan account.

5. Taking into consideration the present pandemic

situation, it has been the approach of all, including the Reserve Bank

of India and to show indulgence and leniency in the matter of

repayment of loan by the defaulters. Taking into consideration the

fact that the petitioner and her husband had immediately before the

pandemic paid a reasonable sum, but thereafter defaulted, an

indulgence can be shown by granting the petitioner an opportunity to

pay the entire overdue amount under the loan account, in a time

bound manner and then explore the possibility of a one time

settlement.

In view of the above, if the petitioner pays the entire

overdue amount on or before 30.09.2021 and files a representation WP(C) NO. 4515 OF 2021

seeking a one time settlement, the Bank shall consider the same and

pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. The decision of

the Bank shall be binding upon the parties. Until such period, all

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C) NO. 4515 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4515/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 NOTICE DATED 07.02.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 NOTICE DATED 08.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P3 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2021 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION.