WP(C)/35962/2019 of MARIAM THOMAS, Vs THE VAIKOM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, on 31 December 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, who are the grandson and daughter-in-law of the petitioner, had availed a loanfrom the 1[st] respondent-bank. Due to financial difficulties, thepetitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 could not repay the loanamount within the stipulated time period. Ext.P1 physicalpossession notice was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Kottayam and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who hasissued Ext.P2 notice. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2and 3 are presently employed abroad and they have expressedtheir willingness to pay off the entire outstanding amount in twelveequated monthly installments.

2. Having regard to the fact that the respondents 2 and 3are sailing with the petitioner, I dispense the notice to them.

3. Heard Sri.M.R.Abhilash, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri.Julian Xavier, learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st]respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondentsubmits that as on 03.10.2019 a total amount of Rs.12,61,239/- is due from the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 towards the loan account. The Bank has no objection in the petitioner beinggranted installment facility to pay off the outstanding amount.

5. 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 AuthorisedOfficer, 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, in view of the alternativestatutory provisions under the Act.

6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner does not dispute the claim made bythe 1[st] respondent in Exts.P1 and P2 and also that the petitioner aswell as the respondents 2 and 3 only want a breathing time to payoff the entire arrears in installments and regularize the loanaccount, notwithstanding the limitation of jurisdiction of this Courtas observed in the aforesaid decision, I entertain this writ petitiononly for the purpose of granting the petitioner and the respondents2 and 3 a breathing time to pay off the entire arrears towards theloan account in equated monthly installments. In the result, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theconstitution of India, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

i) The petitioner is directed to pay the over dueamount as per Exts.P1 and P2 as on 03.10.2019amounting to Rs.12,61,239/- with applicable chargesand interest in twelve monthly installmentscommencing from 15.01.2020.

ii) In addition to the above amount, the petitionershall also pay the regular equated monthlyinstallment as per the loan agreement and timeschedule fixed therein, without fail.

iii) If the petitioner makes the aforesaid payment, her loan account will stand regularized and she and therespondents 2 and 3 will be at liberty to service theloan account as per the original terms of thesanctioned loan amount.

iv) Needless to mention that, if the petitioner commits any default in payment of the amount as directedabove, the benefit granted to her by this judgment mpm would stand vacated and the bank will be at liberty toresurrect Exts.P1 and P2 and recover the entireliability from the petitioner. It is also make clear thatthe directions in the judgment are peremptory innature and the petitioner shall comply with the samewithout committing any default. No further request forextension or modification of the judgment would bepermitted unless in exceptional circumstances.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF MC 378/2019 BEFORE THE CHIEFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICEIN MC 378/2019 DATED ON 10.12.2019.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE