Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 69535
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
JAMEELA – Appellant
Versus
MANJERI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, – Respondent
WP(C)/17528/2019
SRI.ARUN BABU, SRI.G.HARIPRASAD, SRI.RIPPLE HAMZA, SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR, SRI S VIDYASAGAR
The court established that expired term loans could be settled through a structured payment plan, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the court's directives.
Headnote:
Loan - Regularization - N/A - The court directed petitioners to pay outstanding term loans in 12 monthly installments, highlighting the peremptory nature of compliance. Non-compliance would result in lost benefits and the bank's right to recover liabilities.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought regularization of expired term loans from a bank. The bank offered an option to pay the outstanding amounts in installments after the expiration of the loan terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while regularization was not possible, the petitioners could pay off the loans in equal installments over a specified period, thereby closing the loan accounts by the term's end.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could regularize their expired loan facilities or if an installment payment plan would be mandated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that a payment plan could substitute loan regularization and emphasized stringent compliance with the payment terms set forth.
Final Decision: Writ petition ordered for installment payment plan to settle loan amounts.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners pray that two loan facilities availed of by each of them be directed to be regularized.
2. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri.S.Vidyasagar, submits that both the loans are Term Loans and that since its terms have expired, the regularization of the same are not possible; but that the petitioners can be given some time to pay off the entire outstanding therein if they are so interested. He adds that the total outstanding in the 1st petitioner's loan is Rs.52,25,785/-; while that in the loan of 2nd petitioner is Rs.51,67,848/-, as on 27/06/2019, and that they can be allowed to pay this off in not more than 12 equal monthly instalments.
3. On hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri.G.Hariprasad, submitted that his clients will accept this offer and prays that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
4. In the afore circumstances, I direct the 1st petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.52,25,785/-, being the total outstanding in her loan account, as on 27/06/2019; and the 2nd petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.51,67,848/-, being the outstanding in the loan facility availed by him, as on 27/06/2019, in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 29/07/2019; in which event, by the end of this term both the loan accounts will stand closed.
5. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.
6. I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 19/2/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED
18/6/2019 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE AKHIL RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
