Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29242
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
SMT JALAJA JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER Advocate - SRI LEO GEORGE,SC,INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SRI LEO GEORGESCINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 16884/2014
The court affirmed the balance between the bank's rights to recover dues and the petitioners' need for a structured repayment arrangement.
Headnote:
Loan - Housing Loan - Non Performing Asset and Recovery Proceedings - The court upheld the bank's authority to initiate recovery proceedings due to chronic default while allowing the petitioners a chance to regularize payments within specified installments.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners requested time to pay their outstanding housing loan due to default, while the bank considered the loan as a Non Performing Asset and had taken possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court ruled that the bank could not regularize the loan due to chronic defaults but permitted the petitioners to pay the owed amount in installments, thereby pausing recovery actions.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could regularize their housing loan and halt the bank's recovery proceedings despite being chronic defaulters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that even with chronic defaults, offering a structured repayment plan is a viable option to ensure the petitioners can retain possession while fulfilling their obligations.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with permissions for installment payments.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners seek indulgence insofar as seeking instalments to settle the outstanding housing loan availed of from the 2nd respondent and then regularization to satisfy the loan as per the original agreement. Petitioners contend that their residential property is being proceeded against and the housing loan availed, has a period of 160 months which has not yet expired.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank however, stoutly opposes the prayer for regularization. The learned counsel points out that the housing loan was availed in the year 2004. It was once declared as Non Performing Asset in 2009 and possession was also taken over. Subsequently, petitioner was again WP(C).16884/14 permitted to pay as per the original agreement and the property was also resumed to their possession. Again, on default being committed on 19.11.2011, the property was taken over, however, only a symbolic possession was effected.
3. In such circumstances, there can be no regularization of the loan at this point of time, especially since the Bank points out that the petitioners are chronic defaulters. However since proceedings are initiated against the residential property, it is thought fit that the recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance on the petitioners satisfying the entire amounts due in 11 monthly instalments. Hence, it is directed that the respondent Bank shall issue a statement of accounts showing the amounts due as on 15.07.2014. The 1st instalment shall commence on 04.08.2014 and thereafter, on every 4th of each WP(C).16884/14 succeeding month. On satisfaction of the entire instalments, Bank shall be entitled to raise a demand for future interest from 15.07.2014 which shall be satisfied as the 12th instalment on the next succeeding 4th. On one default being committed, recovery proceedings would revive from the stage at which this Court has kept it in abeyance and the petitioners would surrender the property to the Bank without demur.
Writ petition disposed of.
