Kerala High Court
Jimmy Jose Varghese vs Chief Manager(Authorized Officer) on 4 November, 2015
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 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22991 of 2018
------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
JIMMY JOSE VARGHESE,
S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 26 YEARS,
THERETH HOUSE, VAIKOM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 141,
PROPRIETOR, M/S.REGNUM INTERNATIONAL,
ROOM NO.45, 2ND FLOOR, AISWARYA BUILDING,
SD ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, COCHIN - 682 016.
BY ADV.SRI.J.ABHILASH
RESPONDENT:
-----------
CHIEF MANAGER(AUTHORIZED OFFICER)
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESS ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
R.S.BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN - 682 011.
BY SRI.JITESH MENON, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 22991 of 2018 (Y)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
IMPORTER-EXPORTER CODE (IEC) ISSUED BY THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE DATED 04.11.2015.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA INVOICE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 02.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.04.2018 BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
19.07.2018.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
==================================
W.P.(C) No.22991 of 2018
======================================
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, apart from perusing the record.
2. The petitioner, who had used a cash credit facility from the respondent Bank, assailed Exhibit P3 notice. The total amount outstanding is stated to be Rs.19,96,979/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, despite his best efforts, could not repay the loan amount because of his stringent financial conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondent Bank to receive from the petitioner the outstanding loan amount in instalments. -2- W.P.(C) No.22991 of 2018
4. Before proceeding further, I may observe that expansive as the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, I am afraid, it does not go to the extent of interdicting the contractual terms, especially in a financial transaction involving public money, so as to compel the respondent Bank to agree for instalments.
5. But, being aware of the difficulties involved in realising the loan amounts through invidious sale of the property, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, has submitted that the respondent Bank is willing to regularise the loan account by collecting the outstanding amount in eight 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 the accumulated dues, along with regular instalments, in ten equal monthly instalments, starting from -3- W.P.(C) No.22991 of 2018 13.08.2018. Subject to the petitioner's paying the instalments as indicated above, the respondent Bank, as agreed, will regularise the petitioner's loan account. If the petitioner fails to pay any two consecutive instalments within the stipulated time, the respondent Bank can proceed further without recourse to this Court.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE sd