Kerala High Court
Ajeet Kumar Kurup vs State Bank Of Travancore on 19 August, 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25332 of 2016 (N)
-------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
1. AJEET KUMAR KURUP,
S/O. ANJ KURUP, KAMALA SADANAM, KULAMADA,
PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 574.
2. GEETHA KURUP,
W/O. AJEET KUMAR KURUP,PROPRIETRESS,
M/S. NOAH'S ARC, (NOW DEFUNCT), -DO- -DO-
BY ADV. SRI.H.RAMANAN
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
ZONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
2. THE MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PARIPPALLY BRANCH,
PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574.
3. CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES (CGTMSE), 1002-1003,
NAMAN CENTRE, 10TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.C 31,
G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(EAST),
MUMBAI-400 051.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN, S.C
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 25332 of 2016 (N)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 LOAN SANCTION LETTER (TRUE COPY).
EXHIBIT P2 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 28.06.2010 TO
31.08.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 RBI NOTIFICATION (TRUE COPY).
EXHIBIT P4 1ST PETITIONER'S LETTER TO 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY).
EXHIBIT P5 1ST PETITIONER'S LETTER TO 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY).
EXHIBIT P6 3RD RESPONDENT'S REPLYTO 1ST PETITIONER (TRUE COPY).
EXHIBIT P7 1ST RESPONDENT'S REPLYTO EXT.P5 (TRUE COPY).
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TOJUDGE.
Msd.
P.B. SURESH KUMAR,J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2016
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The second petitioner had availed a cash credit facility from the first respondent bank. The first petitioner was one of the guarantors to the said credit facility. The second petitioner had not liquidated the liability in the account of the cash credit facility as agreed. The first respondent bank, in the circumstances, initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioners for realisation of the outstanding in the account of the credit facility. The petitioners, then, instituted W.P.(C)No.4639 of 2016 before this Court seeking permission to liquidate the liability in instalments and this Court, as per the judgment rendered in the said writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2016 -: 2 :- permitted the petitioners to liquidate the liability in eight monthly instalments. The petitioners have not liquidated the liability as permitted by this Court. According to the petitioners, later they came to know that the credit facility availed by the second petitioner was covered by the Credit Guarantee Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) and that premium for covering the credit facility under the scheme has been debited in the account. It is the case of the petitioners that since the credit facility availed by the second petitioner was covered by CGTMSE Scheme, they have no liability to liquidate the outstanding in the account. The petitioners therefore, seek directions to the first respondent bank to treat the cash credit account of the second petitioner as closed. W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2016 -: 3 :- They also seek directions to the first respondent bank to return the title deeds deposited by them by way of security for the credit facility.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. As noted above, the case of the petitioners is that since the credit facility availed by the second petitioner is covered by the CGTMSE Scheme, they have no liability to liquidate the outstanding in the account. The petitioners having obtained a judgment from this Court earlier permitting them to liquidate the liability in the loan account in instalments, according to me, they are not entitled to file a fresh writ petition on the aforesaid ground. In other words, this is a contention which might, and ought to have been raised in the earlier W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2016 -: 4 :- writ petition. Further, there is also no substance in the contention of the petitioners that they have no liability to liquidate the outstanding in the loan account since the credit facility availed by the second petitioner is covered by the CGTMSE Scheme. CGTMSE Scheme is an insurance scheme to protect the interest of the banks in the event of default by the borrowers and premium payable for the coverage of the loan under the scheme is debited in the account of the borrowers based on the terms of the agreements executed by the borrowers. The benefits of the Scheme are to be reimbursed by the banks after realising the dues from the borrowers concerned. If the contention of the petitioners is accepted, the borrowers will have no obligation to repay the loans/credit facilities availed. W.P.(C) No. 25332 of 2016 -: 5 :-
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge