Kerala High Court
T.Sreedharan vs State Bank Of India on 14 June, 2012
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934
OP (DRT).No. 1787 of 2012 (O)
-----------------------------
SA.634/2010 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
.......
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
T.SREEDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.THAMBU, PADIKKALKAD KALAM, MUTHUKAD,
NEAR NEHRU THEATRE, CHITTUR-678101,
` PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.P.G.BABITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORITZED OFFICER,
RASME CITY CREDIT CENTRE,STATE BANK BUILDINGS,
ENGILISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678 001.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
KUNNATHURMEDU BRANCH, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI. S. EASWARAN, SC, SBI
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
OP(DRT) 1787/2012 O
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2)OF THE ACT
DTD 27/5/2010.
EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 8(1)OF
THE SECUTIRY INTEREST ENFORECEMENT RULES 2002.
EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER 8/10/2010 IN IA NO 2734/2010 S.A NO.634/2010
PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF IA NO 1333/2012 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 15/5/2012 INA IA 1333/2012.
EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 21/5/2012 ISSUED BY THE BANK.
EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY
DTD 24/5/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(DRT)No.1787 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of June , 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. But the petitioner was not at all anxious enough to effect timely repayment and when he turned to be a defaulter, the respondent Bank proceeded with steps for realisation of the amount due . Met with the situation, the petitioner approached the DRT, Ernakulam by filing S.A.No.634/2010 raising many a ground of challenge and also filed I.A.No.234/2010 for stay. Though the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order on 08/10/2010 stipulating the payment to be effected so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, admittedly, the petitioner could not satisfy the entire amounts as scheduled, which led to further proceedings. Since the condition was not satisfied, the I.A. for stay preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed subsequently. Later, when the proceedings led to the stage of dispossession, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 I.A. for further O.P.(DRT)No.1787/2012 2 intervention, which was considered and Ext.P5 order was passed directing the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs on or before 22/05/2012 and another two lakhs on or before 10/06/2012. The petitioner has satisfied the initial deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs as borne by Ext.P6 and has approached this Court for immediate intervention referring to the sad plight of the petitioner and also the steps taken by the Bank to cause the property to be sold by way of Ext.P7 sale notification scheduling the sale to be conducted on 18/06/2012.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the various payments effected by the petitioner in fact substantiates the earnest desire to have the loan amount repaid. It is also stated that the petitioner does not dispute the liability, nor is there any dispute with regard to the steps taken by the Bank invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel further submits that, the only relief pressed before this Court is to enable the petitioner to wipe off the entire liability providing some time by way of instalments, simultaneously adding that the petitioner does not intend to press or pursue the proceedings before the DRT ( SA 639/2010). O.P.(DRT)No.1787/2012 3
3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits on instructions that the total outstanding arrears under the loan account is Rs. 6,17,294/- as on 11/06/2012.
4. After hearing both the sides and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the proceedings before the DRT and would like to have the entire liability cleared by way of instalments, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to save the property, if there is a genuine desire.
5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'six' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that no further proceedings are liable to be pursued before the DRT in view of the undertaking already recorded and if there is any O.P.(DRT)No.1787/2012 4 default in effecting the payments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump, pursuing appropriate steps, from the stage where it stands now.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.
O.P.(DRT)No.1787/2012 5