Chacko vs The Authorised Officer, Kerala ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4740 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4740 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2022

Kerala High Court

Chacko vs The Authorised Officer, Kerala ... on 26 April, 2022

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 6TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                  WP(C) NO. 13812 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          CHACKO
          AGED 60 YEARS
          S/O.GEORGE,
          KAITHAMANGALATH HOUSE,
          CHALAMPADAM P.O.,
          MULAYAM, THRISSUR - 680 751.
          BY ADVS.
          JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
          RIMJU P.H.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
          KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
          KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
          THRISSUR - 680 022.
          (ERSTWHILE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK)
    2     BRANCH MANAGER,
          PATTIKKADU BRANCH
          KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
          PATTIKKADU - 680 652.
          (ERSTWHILE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK)

          ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.13812 of 2022
                                                2



                           ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
                          .......................................
                           W.P.(C) No.13812 of 2022
                      ................................................
                     Dated this the 26 th day of April, 2022

                                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a guarantor to a loan from the respondent

Bank and the same has now been defaulted. Ext.P1 is the

possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. During the course of the hearing, petitioner sought for an

opportunity to repay the entire overdue amount in

instalments and to obtain regularisation of the loan

account.

3. I have heard Sri.Johnson Jose Panjikkaran, the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel, upon instructions, submitted

that the total overdue amount is Rs.7,03,423/- and the

respondent Bank is willing to accept repayment of the

overdue amount in limited instalments and to regularise

the loan account.

WP(C) NO.13812 of 2022

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of,

permitting the petitioner to pay the entire overdue amount

of Rs.7,03,423/- in '10' equated monthly instalments and to

have the loan account regularised.

6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent-

Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of

Rs.7,03,423/- along with bank charges and to regularise the

loan account of the petitioner on the following conditions:

(i). The overdue amount of Rs.7,03,423/- along with

bank charges shall be repaid in '10' equated

monthly instalments.

(ii). The first instalment shall be paid on or before

30.05.2022 and the remaining instalments shall be

paid on or before the 30th day of every succeeding

month.

(iii). Petitioner shall continue to pay the regular

EMI's along with the instalments directed above.

(iv). In the event of default of any one instalment,

the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in

accordance with law.

WP(C) NO.13812 of 2022

(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the

entire amounts, all coercive proceedings initiated

against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The writ petition is disposed of.