Binson Cyriac vs Union Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5923 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
       TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 17356 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              BINSON CYRIAC,AGED 43 YEARS
              THAZHATHUPARATHATTEL HOUSE, VAZHITHALA P.O, MANAKKAD,,
              PIN - 685583

              BY ADVS.
              P.PARVATHY
              ELDHO.N.MONCY



RESPONDENT:

              UNION BANK OF INDIA
              REGIONAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM, III FLOOR, AMALA TOWERS,
              ADICHIRA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 686630


OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI. A.S.P. KURUP (SC)




THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.17356/2022                         2



                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitsation Act)

initiated at the instance of the respondent Bank. Ext.P1 is a notice issued

under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act and Ext.P2 is a notice issued by

the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed at the instance of the Bank,

under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, for taking physical possession of

the mortgaged property of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had obtained a cash credit loan from the respondent Bank for the

purposes of agricultural activities and due to unavoidable circumstances, the

petitioner could not repay the amount in time. It is submitted that the

mortgaged property is the only residential house of the petitioner and if

possession of the said property is taken under Ext.P2, the petitioner and his

family will be thrown to the streets. It is submitted that if sufficient

instalment facility is granted, the petitioner will clear off the liability.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent

Bank points out the facts and circumstances of the case and states that the

petitioner had defaulted repayment of amounts under the facility extended to

him and the account has been classified as 'NPA' as early as on 9.10.2021. It

is submitted that while the respondent Bank has no objection in reasonable

instalments being granted to clear off the liability, such instalments cannot

extend beyond ten monthly instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner may be permitted to repay the amount by granting more time.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel for the Bank, this writ petition will stand disposed of

directing that, the petitioner shall clear off the liability with the 1 st respondent

in twelve (12) equal monthly instalments the first of which shall be payable on

or before 30.6.2022. The subsequent instalments shall be paid before the

end of every succeeding month. If any default is committed by the

petitioner, it will be open to the respondent Bank to proceed against the

petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also discharge any

additional interest liability and costs which may be demanded by the

respondent bank. If the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions, all

further proceedings under the Securitisation Act shall remain stayed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17356/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2021 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT BY THE RESPONDENT BANK

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 20.05.2022