Kerala High Court
Sebastian Sabu vs The Authorized Officer on 28 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9694 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SEBASTIAN SABU
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SAMUEL, RESIDING AT 23/110,
PULIYAMPALLY SAUDI, MUNDAMVELI P.O,
ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682507
2 SHARLET SABU
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O SEBASTIAN SABU, RESIDING AT 23/110,
PULIYAMPALLY SAUDI, MUNDAMVELI P.O,
ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 68250
BY ADV SUJA PADNABAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
INDIAN BANK, REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
KOCHI BRANCH, PALACE ROAD,
MATTACHENRY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682002
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
INDIAN BANK, ZONAL OFFICE,
VALANJAMBALAM JN, COCHIN -,
PIN - 682016
SRI.K.V.RAJESWARI(STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9694 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
The petitioners, who have availed financial assistance
from the Indian Bank, have approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:-
''i) To issue a writ or order in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the
petitioners to settle the loan account on remittance of
overdue amount and to regularize the account.
ii) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and
P2 Notices and consequent proceedings and to quash
the same by means of a writ or order as illegal, arbitrary
and in violation of the provisions of Securitization of
Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
iii) In the alternative to pass an order in the
nature of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to
consider the request of the petitioners for One Time
Settlement of loan account after ascertaining the
statement of accounts and particulars of loan amount
waiving exorbitant interest and penal interest and other
eligible concession. "
2. The petitioners had availed a Cash Credit Facility
of ₹4 lakhs in the year 2015, a Term Loan of ₹52,000/- in the
year 2021 and a Housing Loan of ₹6 lakhs in the year 2015.
WP(C) No.9694 Of 2024
The petitioners failed to maintain the loan account and the
respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on
19.03.2024, the petitioners submitted that they are ready to
pay the overdue amount in Housing Loan on or before
27.03.2024. The petitioners now submit that the petitioners
have cleared the overdue amount in Housing Loan account.
4. The petitioners submit that they are ready for One
Time Settlement of the outstanding amounts in Term Loan
account and Cash Credit Facility. The petitioners submit that
they had to sell the 1st petitioner's autorickshaw to clear the
overdue amount in the Housing Loan account. Therefore,
unless the respondents grant waiver to permissible extent for
One Time Settlement, the petitioner will be put to untold
hardship.
WP(C) No.9694 Of 2024
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of
the Bank and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the total outstanding amount of Cash Credit
Facility itself comes to ₹5,19,213/- as on 22.05.2024. The
petitioners have consistently defaulted in maintaining the loan
account and it was in the above circumstances that the Bank
had taken coercive proceedings.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondents.
7. It is clear that as undertaken before this Court on
19.03.2024, the petitioners have cleared the overdue amount
in the Housing Loan account. Taking into consideration the
facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners shall be
granted an opportunity to settle the Cash Credit Facility and
Term Loan through One Time Settlement,
WP(C) No.9694 Of 2024
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if
the petitioners remit an amount of ₹15,000/- within a period of
three weeks from today and make an offer for One Time
Settlement, the Bank shall consider the same and take
appropriate decision as per rules within a further period of
three weeks. If the petitioners remit the amount and make an
application for One Time Settlement as directed above,
coercive proceedings shall stand deferred till the Bank takes a
final decision on the One Time Settlement application.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.9694 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9694/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
27.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED
SALE DATED 01.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
