Kerala High Court
Hameed.M vs Uco Bank on 24 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10050 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
HAMEED M.
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O KALYANKAL MAITHU, HOUSE NO 5/549,
GELASET BUILDING, MATTANCHERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 002.
BY ADVS.
M.R.JAYALATHA
AMRUTHA DIWAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UCO BANK
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, COCHIN BRANCH,
CHULLICKAL, THOPPUMPADI P.O., KOCHI, PIN 682 005
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK,
COCHIN BRANCH, CHULLICKAL, THOPPUMPADI P.O.,KOCHI,
PIN-682 005.
BY ADV.H.RAMANAN, SC FOR BANK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10050 of 2022
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
================
W.P.(C) No. 10050 of 2022
================
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a guarantor to a loan. The son-in-law of the
petitioner as the borrower had availed two loans from the respondent
bank. One loan is a property loan and other is a cash credit facility.
Under the property loan, an amount of Rs.7,31,000/- is remaining due
while under the cash credit facility an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is
remaining due. Thus, a total amount of Rs.15,31,000/- is due from
the borrower under both loan accounts. Petitioner's residential
property is kept as the security interest for the loans. Consequent to
default in repayment, proceedings have been initiated by the bank
for recovery of the amounts due. Petitioner seeks for an opportunity
to repay the loan in instalments and thus save the property from a
possible sale.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that
petitioner had committed default in repayment and the overdue
amount is Rs.15,31,000/-. It was further submitted that though
W.P.(C) No.10050 of 2022
proceedings for recovery have been initiated, as a matter of
indulgence, the respondent bank is willing to accept repayment of
the overdue amount in limited instalments and regularise the loan
account.
3. I have heard Adv.M.R.Jayalatha, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Adv.H.Ramanan, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the
situation now prevailing, apart from the submissions made as
recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted
an opportunity to repay the overdue amount in 20 instalments and
thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid within the time as
directed above, to have the loan account regularised.
5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank
to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.15,31,000/-
along with bank charges from the petitioner and regularise the loan
account of the petitioner on the following conditions:
(i) The overdue amount of Rs.15,31,000/- shall be repaid in
'20' equated monthly instalments.
W.P.(C) No.10050 of 2022
(ii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 24.04.2022
and the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before
the 24th day of the succeeding months.
(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.
(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire
amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in
abeyance.
6. It is clarified that if the remaining instalments under the
property loan is not paid by the borrower, the petitioner shall also be
bound to pay the said amount.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
nk
W.P.(C) No.10050 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10050/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF
SARFAEST ACT 2002 DATED 1.9.2021 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
3.12.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OP NO.
1818/2020 DATED 5.10.2020
