Kerala High Court
Arsh Abdul Azeez vs The Manager on 11 October, 2018
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 19TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 32431 of 2018
PETITIONER:
ARSH ABDUL AZEEZ, A.A HOUSE IX/538
THALIKUZHY (PO), PORUNTHAMON
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 64 YEARS
S/O SHAHUL HAMEED
A.A.HOUSE IX /538, THALIKUZHY PO
PORUNTHAMON CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
KUTTAPPAN THAZHASSERY .K
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA ULLOOR BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER,
BANK OF BARODA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033
BY ADV. SMT.R.REMA, SC, BANK OF BARODA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 32431 of 2018 2
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, besides perusing the record.
2. The petitioner, a borrower from the respondent Bank, assailed the SARFAESI proceedings demanding the loan repayment. To have the loan account regularised, the petitioner has to pay Rs.3,27,500/- together with interest and other charges.
3. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan because of his financial difficulties. The petitioner thus wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments.
4. Before proceeding any more, I may observe that expansive as the Court's jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is; it does not, I am afraid, go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, and compelling the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.
5. But the delays and difficulties in coercive process of recovery well known, the Bank's counsel, on instructions, has WP(C).No. 32431 of 2018 3 submitted that the Bank is willing to regularise the loan account, by collecting Rs.1,50,000/- in one month and the balance in four equal monthly instalments along with regular instalments.
6. So based on the Bank's concession, this Court disposes of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in one month and the balance in four equal monthly instalments. The petitioner will, of course, continue to pay the regular instalments. If the petitioner pays the instalments as shown above, the Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. On the other hand, if the petitioner fails to pay any single instalment within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed without recourse to this Court.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE WP(C).No. 32431 of 2018 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.07.2013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 20567/2013 DATED 20.08.2013 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 06.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.08.2018 RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD