Mary Davis vs Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 7042 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7042 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Mary Davis vs Bank Of India on 17 June, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
        FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 19711 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            MARY DAVIS,
            AGED 52 YEARS,
            W/O. DAVIS,
            KAITHATHRA HOUSE,
            PALATHURUTH,
            CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., PIN 683 512,
            PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
            ANOOP KRISHNA


RESPONDENTS:

    1       BANK OF INDIA,
            REP. BY ZONAL MANAGER,
            KERALA ZONAL OFFICE,
            KALOOR TOWERS,
            KADAVANTHARA ROAD,
            KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 017.

    2       CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER,
            BANK OF INDIA,
            PARUR MAIN BRANCH,
            STAR HOUSE,
            NEAR MUNCIPAL JUNCTION,
            MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 513.

            SRI.K.M.ANEESH, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.19711/2022

                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022

The petitioner and her son, who have obtained a

housing loan of ₹14 lakhs from the 1st respondent-Bank in

the year 2016, are before this Court seeking to consider

Ext.P2 and to permit the petitioner to sell the mortgaged

property to a third party and to pay the due amount as per

One Time Settlement referred in Ext.P1 by paying entire

outstanding dues within six months and seeking for a

direction that till then the steps pursuant to Ext.P1 be kept

in abeyance.

2. The petitioner states that she along with her son

availed a housing loan of ₹14 lakhs. A property was WP(C)No.19711/2022

mortgaged to settle the loan. The petitioner was prompt in

repayment. Subsequently, due to the floods in the year

2018 and 2019 and subsequent Covid-19 pandemic, the

petitioner could not make payments promptly. In the

meanwhile, the respondents have taken coercive

proceedings against the petitioner invoking Section 13(2) of

the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. The petitioner states that the petitioner proposes

to sell off mortgaged property and clear the entire

outstanding dues. If the respondents grant some time to

the petitioner to sell the property, which is now mortgaged,

the entire dues can be cleared.

4. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The

Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations

made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pointed out

that the total outstanding of the petitioner would be around WP(C)No.19711/2022

₹16,04,526/- and the overdue amount itself comes to

₹4,25,269/-. The petitioner has been deliberately defaulting

the repayment. Therefore, the respondents were justified in

proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Ext.P1 is not

liable to be interfered, contended the Standing Counsel.

5. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that

if the petitioner can remit the outstanding amount within a

short period, then a breathing time can be granted to the

petitioner to remit the said amount in instalments.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing

the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner

shall be given reasonable time to clear the overdue amount.

7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of

if any, in 10 equal consecutive monthly instalments.

ii) If the petitioner remits the instalments as directed

above, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall stand

deferred.

iii) If the petitioner commits any default in making

such payments, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed

against the petitioner in accordance with law.

iv) During the afore period, the petitioner will be free

to approach the respondents for One Time Settlement in the

matter as per any Scheme of the respondents.

v) The petitioner will be at liberty to seek permission

to sell the property for clearing the entire dues.

Sd/-

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 13(2) NOTICE DATED 03.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.06.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER TO PERMIT TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND TO PAY THE AMOUNT AS PER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT.