Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10272
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J
MANILAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/1963/2020
SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
A lender should accommodate reasonable requests for loan repayment installments to promote fairness in debt recovery.
Headnote:
Writ - Loan Closure - N/A - The court examined writ petitions concerning loan recovery, focusing on the bank's authority to set repayment terms, interpreting rights to seek installment payments under existing agreements, influencing the decision towards permitting installments for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a demand notice and sought permission to repay overdue loan amounts in installments, citing inability to pay in a lump sum.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the bank’s willingness to negotiate payment terms and directed the bank to provide a detailed account statement and to allow repayment in eight installments.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be allowed to repay overdue loan amounts in installments instead of a lump sum payment as demanded by the bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the respondent bank must consider reasonable repayment proposals to ensure fairness in loan recovery processes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of allowing the petitioner to repay in eight installments.
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above W.P.(C.) are as follows :
“(a) To call for the records relating to Ext.P2 and to quash the same by issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the dues by way of twenty monthly instalments.
(c) Grant such other reliefs that is deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri.Alexander George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents –State Bank of India.
3. Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State Bank of India would submit on the basis of instructions of the party that the total outstanding dues to be cleared by the petitioner as on 4.2.2020 for closure of the loan account in this case is Rs.5,54,297/- and the respondent bank is prepared to give the petitioner one last opportunity to clear the total outstanding overdues for closure of the loan account in case the petitioner pays off the same in 5 equal monthly instalments. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would require atleast 10 equal instalments. Due to the persuasion made by this Court, the respondent State Bank of India does not appear to have very serious objection to the suggestion made by this Court that the instalments said to have offered by the petitioner should be 8 equal monthly instalments. Further the respondent would submit that in case the petitioner complies with the abovesaid directions, then the impugned proceedings will be kept in abeyance and that in case the petitioner does not pay any of the instalments as aforementioned, then the bank will be at liberty to proceed further in the matter from the stage where it has stopped.
Accordingly, the following directions and orders are issued:
(i) The competent official of the respondent bank shall immediately furnish a comprehensive and authenticated statement of account pertaining to the instant loan transaction in question showing the precise details thereof and the total dues to be cleared by the borrower as on the date of issuance of the said statement.
(ii) The petitioner shall clear the entire overdue amounts with all applicable charges and interest in 8 equal monthly instalments of which the 1st instalment shall be payable on or before 15.03.2020 and further 7 instalments shall be payable on or before 15th day of the respective months concerned.
(iii) In case the petitioner complies with the abovesaid directions, then the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Further in case the petitioner does not pay any of the instalments, then the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further with the impugned steps from the stage where it has stopped.
With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil)
stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE SKS APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
14.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
22.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
