WP(C)/35929/2019 of ANU SENTHIL Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 31 December 2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of December 2019

The petitioner's husband had availed a housing loan from the first respondent for an amount of Rs.30,000,00/-. The petitioner's husband had also created an equitable mortgage in respect of his propertyin favour of the first respondent.

2.

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that her husband fell into grave financial crisis and that heis unable to pay off the monthly installments. In the abovecircumstances, the first respondent has declared theproperty as a non-performing asset and has affixedExt.P3 possession notice on the property. The petitioner's husband is now out of station, he has instructed thepetitioner to challenge the proceedings initiated by the respondent. Even though, the petitioner approached the first respondent seeking time to settle the outstandingamounts in installments, the first respondent hasthreatened to take possession of the property on orbefore 31.12.2019.

3. I have heard Sri.Alexander George, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jowaher Jose, learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent.

4. I am conscious of the judicial pronouncements laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank ofIndia v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and that ofthis Court in Authiorised officer, State Bank ofTravancore v. Mathew [ILR 2018 (1) Ker 479] that thiscourt should be slow in interfering in matters underSARFAESI Act under article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, and the parties should be relegated to exhaust their statutory remedies.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he is not disputing the amount claimed by the first respondent in Ext.P3

possession notice, but only wants a breathing time to pay the entire arrears in installments and to regularise theloan account.

6. Not withstanding the limitation of the

jurisdiction of this Court as observed in the aforesaid precedents, I entertain this writ petition only for thepurpose of granting the petitioner a breathing time to payoff the entire arrears towards the loan account in equal monthly installments. The learned Standing Counsel forthe respondent Bank submits that the Bank is also ready to accept the defaulted amount in four monthlyinstallments, and as on today, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is due to the Bank.

7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay off the entire outstanding arrears in installments, and also to give a quietus to the litigation, I feel that some indulgence andleniency can be shown in favour of the petitioner.

8. In the result, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,this writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

i) Petitioner is directed to pay the over due amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as on today along with applicable charges and interest in sixmonthly installments commencing from15.1.2020.

ii) In addition to the above amount,

petitioner shall also pay the regular equalmonthly installment as per the loan agreement and time schedule fixed, without fail.

iii) If petitioner makes the aforesaid

payment the loan account shall standregularised and he would be liberty to theservice of the account as per the originalterms of the sanctioned loan account.

iv) Needless to mention that, if thepetitioner commits any default in payment ofthe amount as directed above, the benefitgranted to him by this judgment shall standsvacated and the Bank would be liberty toproceed with the recovery proceedings andrecover the entire liability from thepetitioner. It is also made clear that thedirections in this judgment are peremptory innature and the petitioner shall comply thesame without committing any default. Nofurther requests for extension or modificationof this judgment will be permitted unless inexceptional circumstances, failing which thepetitioner's right to challenge the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESIAct will stand foreclosed before any otheralternative forum or Court.

v) The respondents are directed to

furnish to the petitioner a statementregarding the loan account, as on today on orbefore 5.1.2020.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

ACM/31.12.2019

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2

THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3

THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICEDATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.