Kerala High Court
R.Anandkumar vs Union Bank Of India on 8 April, 2010
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
MONDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2014/12TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 4805 of 2014 (A)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
R.ANANDKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.RAMAMOORTHY REDDIAR, PROPRIETOR, SIVANANDA STORES,
M.O.WARD, PALACE ROAD,
ALAPPUZHA - 658 001,RESIDING AT "SABARI" HOUSE,
PALACE ROAD, ALAPPUZHA -658 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS,
SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN,
SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, KABEER PLAZA, MULLACKAL,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED OFFICER- 688 001.
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, KABEER PLAZA,
MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.
BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, S.C, U.B.I.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.4805/2014-A:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P-1: THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER 2.11.2009.
EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT,
ALAPPUZHA, MARCH 2010.
EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 8.4.2010 ISSUED BY
APARNA C.MENON, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 1563/2010 IN UNREGISTERED
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION (I.D.NO.8083/2010) DATED 4.6.2010.
EXT.P-5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2013 SECURITIZATION
APPLICATION NO.268/2013.
EXT.P-6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PUBLICATION DATED 6.2.2014
PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 7.2.2014.
EXT.P-7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DTD. 26/02/2014.
EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DTD. 26/02/2014 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF
EXT.P.7 DEMAND DRAFT.
EXT.P-9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT
BENEFITS DTD. 24/02/2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 4805 of 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P6 sale notice, whereby sale of the property over which security interest created has been scheduled to be held on 13.03.2013. The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider the application filed by him for extending the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme and to enable the petitioner to settle the liability accordingly. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 3240 of 2010 as well, producing a copy of the application filed by the petitioner for extending the benefit of 'OTS' as per Ext. P9 and also as to the receipt issued by the Bank accepting Demand Draft dated 26.02.2014 for Rs. 20 lakhs satisfied by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 21.02.2014.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits, on instruction, that altogether three different loans were availed by the petitioner; viz Cash Credit Hypothication facility of Rs.23 lakhs, housing loan of Rs. 15 lakhs and a vehicle loan of Rs. 8 lakhs. Because of the chronic default committed by the petitioner, the Bank was constrained to file O.A. No. 334 of 2011, which was W.P.(C) No. 4805 of 2014 : 2 : decreed in favour of the Bank. It is stated that the outstanding liability as on 01.02.2014 was Rs. 62,16,683/- plus further interest and cost. Since the petitioner has chosen to remit Rs. 20 lakhs, the outstanding liability as on date will be nearly Rs. 42.5 lakhs. It is also pointed that the application preferred by the petitioner for OTS was considered and rejected, as the terms were not acceptable to the Bank, and that the position has been communicated to the petitioner as well. This being the position, the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the application for OTS has virtually become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proceedings are pending before the DRT Ernakulam at the instance of the petitioner and that the proceeding wherein interim order was passed was not even numbered and further, the condition could not be satisfied by the petitioner on time. It is stated that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the matter before the DRT any further and that the relief now pressed before this Court is to grant some breathing time to clear outstanding liability, by way of reasonable installments, with liberty to approach the respondents for waiver of penal interest. The learned counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 4805 of 2014 : 3 : respondent Bank submits that, if the petitioner files a representation for waiver of penal interest, it will be considered within reasonable time.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to clear entire liability by way of 'six' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 20th of March, 2013; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, this will be without prejudice to the rights and interest of the petitioner to approach the respondent to waive the penal interest. Subject to this, the further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps from the stage where it stands now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd