Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.K.A.Siyad on 29 September, 2016

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

             THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1939

                                 WP(C).No. 8704 of 2018




PETITIONER


    NOOR MOHAMMED,
    S/O. LATE SAIDU MOHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, NEW
    THEATRE, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD


        BY ADV.SRI.K.A.SIYAD


RESPONDENT:

    STATE BANK OF INDIA,
    REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SME BRANCH,
    KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD - 678 001

       R BY SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, SBI


    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8704 of 2018 (K)

                                    APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1:      A TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED
                 SEPTEMBER 29, 2016

EXHIBIT P2:      A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED JUNE 22, 2017
                 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3:      A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED SEPTEMBER 14,
                 2017

EXHIBIT P4:      A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED MARCH 3, 2018
                 ISSUED   BY   THE   ADVOCATE    COMMISSIONER
                 CONTEMPLATING TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER ON
                 16 MARCH 2018

EXHIBIT P5:      A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS OF THE
                 PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE AMALA INSTITUTE OF
                 MEDICAL SCIENCES.


RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

                                      NIL

                                                                 /TRUE COPY/


VPS                                                              PS TO JUDGE

                        P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No.8704 of 2018
                 ---------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 15th day of March, 2018


                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner availed two term loans, from the State Bank of India (the bank). He has not remitted the instalments of the loans as agreed. Consequently, proceedings have been initiated by the bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) for realisation of the outstanding in the loan accounts. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the bank.

3. When the matter was taken up, the learned WPC 8704/18 -:2:- counsel for the petitioner pointed out that non-payment of the instalments of the loans by the petitioner was due to reasons beyond his control and not wilful and that if a reasonable time is granted, the petitioner is prepared to liquidate the overdue in the loan accounts, so that he can repay the remaining outstanding in the loan accounts in instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the bank, on instructions, submitted that a total sum of Rs.36,99,434/- is overdue in the loan accounts.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the orders passed by this Court in similar writ petitions, this writ petition is disposed of as follows :

(i) The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- out of the overdue on or before 31.3.2018 and the balance overdue with the interest due, in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 1.5.2018. The petitioner shall also pay, in addition, the regular instalments of the loan on the due dates.

(ii) If the petitioner remits the overdue in the loan WPC 8704/18 -:3:- accounts as directed above, the bank shall regularise the loan accounts so as to enable the petitioner to liquidate the remaining liability in accordance with the terms of the loans.

(iii) Needless to say that if the petitioner liquidates the overdue as directed above, coercive action against the petitioner shall be deferred. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner commits default in remitting any one of the instalments as directed, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Act can be continued.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE vps 16/3 /True Copy/ PS to Judge