Geetha Kumary vs The Authorized Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 7262 Ker

`             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 20224 OF 2022
PETITIONER

                  GEETHA KUMARY
                  AGED 50 YEARS
                  W/O.BALACHANDREN, KALLELIBHAGAM P.O.,
                  KARUNAGAPPALLY, NOW RESIDING AT SKD BHAVANAM,
                  NEAR SAKTHIKULANGARA DEVI TEMPLE, ADINADU
                  VILLAGE, ADINADU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
                  DISTRICT, PIN-690519.
                  BY ADVS.
                  BINU GEORGE
                  HEMALATHA
                  ARYA UNNIKRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS

       1          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
                  CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, RAMANKULANGARA,
                  THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-
                  691012.
       2          THE BRANCH MANAGER,
                  CANARA BANK, KARUNAGAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAM
                  DISTRICT, PIN-690518.
                  SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SC) R1 AND R2
           THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION          ON   23.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.20224 of 2022        :2:




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who has availed a housing loan for

Rs.8,00,000/- and another mortgage loan for Rs.12 lakhs

from the 2nd respondent, is before this Court seeking to

command the respondents to regularise the loan accounts

after receiving the defaulted payments from the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner has availed

two loans from the Canara Bank. The tenure of the loan is

15 years. The petitioner has been paying regular EMIs

initially. However, subsequently, due to Covid-19 pandemic

and consequential loss of employment of the petitioner's

husband in Gulf where he was employed, remittances were

defaulted. In spite of earnest efforts taken by the petitioner,

the outstanding arrears could not be cleared. In the

meanwhile, the respondents have initiated coercive

proceedings and steps to take possession of the petitioner's

property on 24.06.2022.

3. The petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and

willing to clear off the outstanding arrears in respect of both

the loans, provided a breathing time is given to the petitioner.

Meanwhile, if the respondents are proceeding to take

possession of the property, the petitioner will be put to untold

hardship and loss.

4. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of the respondents and contested the writ petition.

The Standing Counsel controverted all material allegations

made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that

the petitioner has defaulted in repayments of EMIs in the

immediate past years. The petitioner was required to clear off

the outstanding arrears a number of times. The petitioner did

not yield.

5. In fact, the petitioner was issued Ext.P2

communication also offering to settle the account in the

Adalat. The petitioner did not opt to avail that opportunity

either. The outstanding overdue amount in respect of the

petitioner's housing loan is Rs.2,76,759/- and the overdue

amount in mortgage loan is Rs.10,97,997/- as on date.

Unless the petitioner makes substantial payments

immediately, no relief can be granted to the petitioner,

contended the counsel for the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

7. From the pleadings and arguments, it is discernible

that the petitioner has availed a housing loan and mortgage

loan when the petitioner's husband was employed in Gulf

countries. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's

husband lost employment and had to return to India and the

repayments were thereupon defaulted. In the totality of the

circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner

should be granted reasonable time to clear off liabilities.

8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.3 lakhs on or before 30.07.2022, out of which Rs.1 lakh

shall be paid on or before 30.06.2022.

(ii) The balance amount along with accruing interest

and other charges, if any, shall be paid by the petitioner in 11

equal and consecutive monthly instalments commencing

immediately thereafter.

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in making the

payments as directed above, the respondents will be free to

proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payment as directed above,

Ext.P3 and any other coercive proceedings against the

petitioner or sureties, will stand deferred.

(v) The petitioner shall pay regular EMIs along with

aforesaid instalments promptly.

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/28.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20224/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PASS BOOK OF PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 9.6.2022.