Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35982
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
NARAYANANKUTTY C P AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA OTTAPALAM BRANCH AND – Respondent
WP(C)/14082/2009
SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.SREEHARI2) SMT. SHARMILA V. WO. NARAYANANKUTTY
The decision highlighted the importance of timely repayment in the context of banking laws, specifically under the SARFAESI Act, and the subsequent impact on coercive recovery actions.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Jurisdiction - Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act - The court addressed the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate in the context of enforcement proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, ruling on the petitioners' challenge against the bank's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the respondent Bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act, contesting the jurisdiction of the third respondent to entertain an application under Section 14 while also expressing willingness to clear overdue amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioners' willingness to clear the overdue amounts and directed that the loan be regularized upon prompt payment, thus keeping coercive bank actions in abeyance while ensuring compliance from the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to proceed with the bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as contested by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioners' commitment to resolve overdue payments, indicating a practical resolution that addressed the legal framework provided under the SARFAESI Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of based on the petitioners' commitment to repay overdue amounts.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the SARFAESI Act , raising many a ground including that the third respondent does not have any jurisdiction or competence to have entertained any application under Section 14 of the said enactment.
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank on instruction submits that the entire files have now been caused to be forwarded to the 'District Magistrate' and that further proceedings are being pursued in accordance with law. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, with specific reference to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, that a total sum of Rs. 4,13,264/- is overdue as on 28.02.2010 in respect of the defaulted installments and if the petitioners are ready and willing to clear the said amount , the Bank is ready to have the loan account regularised .
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire 'overdue' amount, as above will be cleared forthwith, for which some breathing time is sought for, simultaneously assuring that all other contentions raised in the Writ Petition challenging the steps taken by Bank are intended to be given a 'go bye' and further that the petitioners will continue to effect future installments without fail.
4. In the above circumstance, the petitioners are directed to clear the 'overdue' amount by way of two equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be satisfied within three weeks and the next one within three weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall continue to effect the regular E.M.Is as originally stipulated, besides clearing the arrears as above. The loan will stand regularised accordingly and all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. It is further made clear that if the petitioners commit any default in remitting the overdue amounts/arrears as above or in the event of committing two consecutive defaults in respect of the regular E.M.Is payable, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum, pursuing such steps, from the stage where it stands now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
