Kerala High Court
Jayaprakash Chandrasekharan vs The Indian Overseas Bank on 31 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7023 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JAYAPRAKASH CHANDRASEKHARAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN,
308 B, DD GOLDEN GATE,
PALACHUVADU, KAKKANADU,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
K.S.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
THRIKKAKARA BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR,
HEERA CYBER VIEWS, THENGODE,
P.O.EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH
MANAGER, PIN - 682030
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
(APPOINTED UNDER THE SARFESI ACT),
THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, P.O.EDACHIRA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DIST.,
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
SUNIL SHANKAR A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.7023/2024
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.7023 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
direct respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the Housing Loan
and Personal Loan availed of by the petitioner from the 1 st
respondent-Bank permitting the petitioner to make
repayment of loan instalments after regularisation of the loan
account.
2. The petitioner states that he availed a housing
loan of ₹33 lakhs and a personal loan of ₹7,92,212/- from the
1st respondent-Bank in the year 2019. Property of 126.36
Ares and a residential apartment were mortgaged as
security.
3. Due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequential
restrictions, the petitioner lost his job and he could not pay
the monthly instalments. The 2nd respondent thereupon
issued Ext.P2 sale notice for an amount of ₹52,55,473/-.
The petitioner states that his friends and relatives have
offered help to the petitioner to raise funds to clear the loan.
The petitioner is now employed and his salary can be utilised
for repayment. Taking possession of the property would
render the petitioner homeless. The petitioner is not an
intentional defaulter. The respondents are therefore
compellable to regularise the Housing Loan.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the Bank and resisted the writ petition. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the petitioner was extended an
amount of ₹33 lakhs as Hosing Loan and ₹8 lakhs as
Personal loan in the year 2019. In spite of repeated
reminders, the petitioner did not maintain the loan account
properly. The Bank was therefore forced to initiate
proceedings against the petitioner invoking the provisions of
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. The Standing Counsel submitted that the overdue
amount payable by the petitioner would come to ₹17,54,407/-
and the total outstanding amount is ₹54,21,646/-. Unless the
petitioner pays the overdue amount forthwith, the loan
account cannot be regularised.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
7. The fact that the petitioner has availed a Housing
Loan and Personal Loan is not disputed. The repayment of
instalment was defaulted. This is alos not disputed. In such
circumstances, the Bank is justified in initiating proceedings
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
8. The transaction involved is purely a commercial
transaction. Personal reasons of the petitioner for his
inability to repay the loan amount would not in any manner
affect the right of the Bank to recover the loan amount by
realising the security interest. The petitioner has no legal
right to get the loan account regularised when he has
defaulted in repayment and when huge overdues are
payable.
The writ petition is therefore without any merit and
hence it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/30.05.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7023/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY
CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER DATED
17.10.2019.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER
SECTION 13 OF THE SARFESI ACT DATED
23.1.2024ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DT. 8.5.2024.
