Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35992/2019 of ANOOP MATHEW, Vs THE VIJAYA BANK on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35992 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER: ANOOP MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PADIKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, POOTHIKKAD, BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941WP(C).No.35992 OF 2019(Y)
PETITIONER:
ANOOP MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PADIKKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, POOTHIKKAD, BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT:
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
THE VIJAYA BANKSULTHAN BATHERY BRANCH, WAYNAD DISTRICT - 673 592, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NEENA DEVASSY.
SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the respondent- bank. On account of the recent natural calamity, thattook place in Wayanad District, the petitioner was unable to pay offthe monthly installments within the stipulated time period. Therespondent-bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Actand issued Ext.P1 notice to take possession of the property as perorder in CMP No.837/2019 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Kalpetta. Ext.P2 notice has been issued by the AdvocateCommissioner. The petitioner seeks a breathing time to repay thedefault amount.
2. Heard Sri.Rakesh.K., learned counsel for the petitionerand Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent.
3. I am conscious of the judicial pronouncements of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. SatyawatiTondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and that of this Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [ILR 2018(1) KER.479] that this Court should be slow in interfering withmatters under the SARFAESI Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the alternative remedies providedunder the Act.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner does not dispute theamount claim made by the respondent-bank and that the petitioneronly wants a breathing time to pay off the entire outstandingamount due under the loan account in equal monthly installments,notwithstanding the limitation of the jurisdiction of this Court hasobserved in the aforesaid decisions, I deem it appropriate toentertain the writ petition only for the purpose of granting thepetitioner a breathing time to pay off the entire loan amount inequated monthly installments.
5. Although, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent-bank states that the entire amount has to be paid on orbefore the end of this financial year, in view of the averments madein the writ petition that the petitioner was severely affected in therecent catastrophic deluge in Wayanad and that he is under severefinancial distress and that he can pay off the outstanding amount inten equal monthly installments, I am inclined to grant the petitionerten equal monthly installments to pay off the amount.
4
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsubmits that as on 31.12.2019 an amount of Rs.3,56,000/- is duefrom the petitioner to the bank.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner has volunteered to pay off the entire outstanding amount in equated monthlyinstallments and that if the petitioner avails the benefit of thisjudgment, it would give a quietus to the litigation, I feel someindulgence and leniency can be shown in favour of the petitioner.In the result, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is disposedof as follows:
i) The petitioner is directed to pay the over due amount of Rs.3,56,000/- as on today along withapplicable charges and interest in ten equal monthlyinstallments commencing from 15.01.2020.
ii) In addition to the above amount, the petitioner shall also pay the regular equated monthlyinstallments as per the loan agreement and timeschedule fixed therein, without fail.
iii) If the petitioner makes the aforesaid payment, his loan account shall stand regularize and he will be at liberty to service the loan account as per the originalterms of the sanctioned loan amount.
iv) Needless to mention that, if the petitionercommits any default in payment of the amount asdirected above, the benefit granted to him by thisjudgment would stand vacated and the bank will beat liberty to resurrect the SARFAESI proceedings andrecover the entire liability from the petitioner. It isalso make clear that the directions in the judgmentare peremptory in nature and the petitioner shallcomply with the same without committing anydefault. No further request for extension ormodification of the judgment would be permittedunless in exceptional circumstances.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN C.M.P. NO. 837/2019 OF THE C.J.M., KALPETTA DATED 28.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 OF THE C.J.M., KALPETTA IN C.M.P. NO. 837/2019.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE