Kerala High Court
P.K.Abdul Salam vs State Bank Of India on 17 January, 2020
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.764 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONERS:
1 P.K.ABDUL SALAM
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KOYA, HOUSE NO.CC1/1337,
K.B.JACOB ROAD, NJALIPARAMBU,
FORT KOCHI-682011,
NOW RESIDING AT CC.12/808 A,
KAPPALANDIMUKKU, MATTANCHERRY-682002.
2 FASILA ABDUL SALAM
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.P.K.ABDUL SALAM,
HOUSE NO.CC1/1337,
K.B.JACOB ROAD, NJALIPARAMBU,
FORT KOCHI-682001,
NOW RESIDING AT CC.12/808 A,
KAPPALANDIMUKKU,
MATTANCHERRY-682002.
BY ADVS.
SMT.C.G.PREETHA
SRI.P.E.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MATTANCHERRY, KANDATHIL COMPLEX,
P.T.JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY,
KOCHI-682005.
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE - 2,
(RACPC-2), SBT AVENUE,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036.
SRI.JITHESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No. 764 of 2020
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
========================
WP(C).NO. 764 of 2020
=======================
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
"i) To direct the respondents to regularise the loan account of the petitioners by permitting them to make monthly instalment payments and on regularising the loan account to restore possession of the vehicle to them.
ii) Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 and till then not to proceed with the sale.
iii) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant the facts and circumstances of the case. "
2. Heard Smt.C.G. Preetha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Jithesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (State Bank of India).
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent State Bank of India was requested to get instructions in the matter. Today (17.01.2020) when the matter was taken up for consideration, Sri.Jithesh Menon learned counsel for the respondents would submit on the basis of the instructions that the EMI in this Car loan transaction is Rs. 34,193/- per month and that the total over dues to be cleared by the petitioner as on today WPC No. 764 of 2020 3 (17.01.2020) for regularization of loan account is Rs. 4,75,751/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fiftyone only) and that the respondent bank is prepared to give one last opportunity to petitioner to clear the over dues for regularizing the loan account by paying such over dues in 6 monthly installments and that until the expiry of the said time limit, further steps in proceedings into shall be kept in abeyance by the respondent Bank. Further that, subject to these conditions, the petitioner should pay the applicable charges and interest thereon and should also clear the regular EMIs in time and further that in case the petitioner does not comply with any one of the above said conditions, then the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further with impugned proceedings from the stage where it has been stopped.
4. Further the respondent bank would submit that in case the petitioner clears the 1st installment including the regular EMI concerned, as aforestated, then respondent Bank is even prepared to immediately give provisional custody of the seized vehicle to the petitioner subject to the petitioner producing an affidavit stating that in case the petitioner commits default of any one of the above conditions, then the possession of the vehicle will be voluntarily given back by the petitioner to the respondent Bank WPC No. 764 of 2020 4 and further that he would also give a written undertaking before the registration authority concerned under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (RTO concerned) that after such provisional release of the vehicle, he will not transfer, encumber or alienate the said vehicle in any manner without the permission of the respondent State Bank of India. Taking note of the above said submissions made on behalf of the respondent bank, the following directions and orders are passed;
i) The competent official of the respondent State Bank of India shall immediately furnish a comprehensive and authenticated statement of accounts pertaining to the above said loan transaction to the petitioner, showing the details and the precise figures regarding the balance over dues to be cleared by the petitioner as on the date of issuance of the said statement for regularization of the loan account.
ii) The petitioner will thereupon clear the entire balance over dues for the loan account in 6 equal monthly installments starting from February 2020, which is payable on or before 28.2.2020 and further monthly installments will be payable on or before the last day of the month concerned. Further it is ordered that the petitioner shall pay all the applicable charges and interest thereon and should also clear regular EMIs in time. Subject to these conditions, the respondent Bank shall not proceed further with the impugned proceedings until the expiry of the above said WPC No. 764 of 2020 5 outer time limit.
iii) Further, in case the petitioner pays the above said 1 st installment inclusive of the regular EMI concerned, then the respondent Bank will thereupon give provisional custody of the ceased vehicle to the petitioner, subject to the condition the petitioner should swear to an affidavit undertaking that he shall not alienate, transfer or encumber the said vehicle without the express permission in writing of the respondent State Bank of India. The petitioner should also give a written undertaking before the registration authority concerned under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (RTO concerned), stating that he will not transfer, encumber or alienate the said vehicle without the written permission of the respondent State Bank of India.
iv) However, in case the petitioner defaults in making instalments payments inclusive of the regular EMIs, as aforesaid, then then the respondent bank will be at liberty to immediately proceed further with the impugned proceedings from the stage where it has been stopped. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
(Sd/-)
ALEXANDER THOMAS
LU JUDGE
WPC No. 764 of 2020
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITH RESPECT
TO LOAN ACCOUNT NO.33732863982 FOR THE
PERIOD 14.3.2014 TO 25.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED
5.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED
25.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIPS
EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.1,50,000/-
AND RS.74,000/- TOWARDS LOAN ACCOUNT NO.33732863982.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2020.
// True Copy // PA To Judge