Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.R.Sreehari on 6 July, 2017
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 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 12798 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)
MUHAMMED BABU
S/O U HAMSAS, 28 YEARS, URAVANKUNNATH HOUSE,
PARITHIPRA, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI
SRI.SACHIN VYAS
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, SHORNUR TOWN BRANCH
OPPOSITE JUMA MASJID, MAIN ROAD, SHORNUR 679 121
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
PARAKKAL BUILDINGS, POST OFFICE ROAD, SHORNUR- 679 121
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, SBI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-04-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12798 of 2018 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHBITP1 PHOTOCOPY OF TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S
VEHICLE KL 10N TEMP 3281
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06-07-2017 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISION OF
SARFAESI ACT
EXHIBITP3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF LOAN A/C
NO.67332122016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
// TRUE COPY //
Sd/-
PS TO JUDGE
Kvs/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
=============
W.P.(C).No.12798 of 2018
=============
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Petitioner availed a vehicle loan from State Bank of India (the bank). He has not remitted the instalments of the loan 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 account. 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 counsel for the petitioner pointed out that non-payment of the instalments of the loan 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 account, so that he can repay the outstanding in the WPC.No.12798 of 2018 2 loan account in instalments.
4. The learned counsel for the bank, on instructions, submitted that a sum of Rs.2,54,246/- is overdue in the loan account.
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 the overdue in the loan account with the interest due, in ten equal monthly instalments, of which the first instalment shall be paid within one month from today. 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 account as directed above, the bank shall regularise the loan account so as to enable the petitioner to liquidate the remaining liability in accordance with the terms of the loan.
(iii) Needless to say that if the petitioner liquidates the overdue as directed above, coercive action WPC.No.12798 of 2018 3 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.
Kvs/-
// true copy //