V.Ravi @ Raveendran vs Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 10985 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10985 Ker
Judgement Date : 26 October, 2023

Kerala High Court

V.Ravi @ Raveendran vs Manager on 26 October, 2023

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 34389 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         V.RAVI @ RAVEENDRAN
         AGED 62 YEARS
         S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKEPARAMBIL (H),
         THIRUVANDOOR.P.O, CHENGANNUR TALUK., PIN - 689109

         BY ADVS.
         N.ASHOK KUMAR
         ARJUN S.KURUPP


RESPONDENTS:

    1    MANAGER
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THIRUVANDOOR BRANCH,
         M,.C.ROAD, KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
         ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689124
    2    AUTHORISED OFFICER
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
         NEAR SAMSKARA JUNCTION, PIPELINE ROAD,
         PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

         SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.34389 of 2023
                                   2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023

The petitioner states that he had availed a Housing Loan

of ₹5,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank in the year 2015.

The petitioner states that he has paid more than ₹3,00,000/-

through installments. Since the year 2020, due to Covid-19

pandemic, there occurred default in repayment. The

petitioner's son passed away on 02.03.2023 in a motor

vehicle accident. Due to all these reasons, the petitioner

could not remit the balance amount promptly. The

respondents have now taken coercive action against the

property of the petitioner, invoking the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to

clear the loan outstanding if a breathing time is given. In the

meanwhile, if the petitioner's property is proceeded against, WP(C) No.34389 of 2023

he will be put to untold hardship and loss.

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf

of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The

Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount

as on date would be more than ₹6,06,592/-. The overdue

amount itself would come to ₹1,80,828/-. During this period,

the petitioner's son, who was a co-borrower, passed away. It

is only due to persistent default by the petitioner that the

respondents are forced to take legal action. On behalf of the

respondents, it is submitted that the Bank has no objection if

the petitioner clears the overdue amount within a short span

of time. But, this should be without prejudice to the right of the

Bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the total

outstanding is only a little above ₹6,00,000/- and the overdue WP(C) No.34389 of 2023

amount is less than ₹2,00,000/-, it would be only in the

interest of justice that the petitioner is given a breathing time

to clear the overdue amount.

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

with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall clear the overdue

amount of ₹1,80,828/- along with accrued interest and

administrative charges, if any, in six Equal Monthly

Installments. First of such installments shall be paid

on or before 25.11.2023. The remaining five

Installments shall be paid in the next five consecutive

months.

(ii) If the petitioner commits any default in

paying the installments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to invoke the provisions

of the SARFAESI Act.