Kerala High Court
WP(C)/31389/2012 of BINU R. Vs THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 31389 of 2012 (W) --------------------------- CMP.7634/2012 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): ------------- BINU R., USHA MANDIRAM, EZHIPPURAM, PARIPPILLY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 31389 of 2012 (W) --------------------------- CMP.7634/2012 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S):-------------
BINU R.,
USHA MANDIRAM, EZHIPPURAM, PARIPPILLY P.O., KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ARPAN TOWERS, PRATHIBA JUNCTION, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PARIPPILLY BRANCH, PARIPPILLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 574.
R BY ADV.R.S.KALKURA, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.AGM/IV/T/NPA/51/10-11 DATED 17-01-2011.
EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-12-2012.
EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-12-2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 31389 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner availed of an education loan from the respondentBank. Default was committed and therefore SARFAESIproceedings were initiated against him and his father who is asurety. In that proceedings, Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(2) ofthe Act was issued. Subsequently, on receipt of Ext.P2, petitionerapproached the Bank on 28/12/12 for settlement of the liability inan Adalath and according to him, the liability was agreed to besettled. Meanwhile, he was issued Ext.P3 notice by the AdvocateCommissioner threatening to take over possession of themortgaged asset. It was at that stage the petitioner filed this writpetition.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, theliability was agreed to be settled on payment of a total amount of`8.23 lakhs. It is also stated that the petitioner was required todeposit an amount of `1.5 lakhs on 28/12/12 itself and that inpartial payment, he has already remitted `50,000/- and he willpay the balance immediately. On this basis, counsel requests that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amountdue from him in instalments.
3. However, counsel for the Bank who has obtainedinstructions in the matter submits that as per the terms agreedbetween the parties, the petitioner should have remitted `1.5lakhs on 28/12/12 itself. It is also stated that the balance amountdue from the petitioner should be remitted by him within onemonth from the date of settlement.
4. From the submissions thus made by the counsel forboth sides, it is obvious that the total liability of `8,68,485/- wasagreed to be settled on payment of `8.23 lakhs subject to twoconditions. The first one is that out of the total amount payable,`1.5 lakhs should have been paid on 28/12/12 itself. The secondcondition was that the balance amount due should be paid by thepetitioner within one month from the date of settlement. Not onlythat the petitioner has not complied with the first condition,petitioner is also seeking an instalment facility for payment of thebalance amount.
5. The settlement of the liability in an Adalath is a matterof agreement between the parties and if one of the parties does not honor the terms of such settlement, the consequence wouldbe that the benefit of the settlement will be lost. In this case, thisprecisely is what has happened. In such circumstances, this Courtwill not be justified in interfering with the matter and allow thepetitioner to pay the amount in instalments as sought for.
6. However, having regard to the fact that the liabilityincurred by the petitioner is by availing of an education loan anddefault has happened for reasons which were beyond his control, Iam inclined to allow the petitioner to pay the balance amount dueto the Bank in 10 equal monthly instalments. The first instalmentshall be paid by the petitioner on or before 15/1/2013 and thesubsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the 15[th] ofevery succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, coerciveaction will stand deferred and in case of default, Bank will be freeto continue the recovery action already initiated.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE