Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35799
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
VALSALAKUMARI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY TAHASILDARRR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10098/2017
The court established that structured repayment plans may be acceptable even when government schemes complicate loan regularization.
Headnote:
Recovery - Vehicle Loan - Central Government Scheme - Section on Default and Recovery Proceedings - The court analyzed provisions related to loan defaults under a government scheme, determining that while regularization wasn't feasible, a repayment plan could be established, granting the petitioner an opportunity to repay the overdue amount in installments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faced recovery proceedings for a vehicle loan, expressing willingness to repay the overdue amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the Bank's obligation to pursue recovery despite a claim with the Central Government, allowing the petitioner to make repayments in installments.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could regularize the vehicle loan despite ongoing recovery proceedings and claims made to the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even though the standard regularization process was not available due to government scheme conditions, a structured payment plan could be permitted to facilitate repayment.
Final Decision: Petitioner allowed to repay overdue amount in installments.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is concerned with the recovery proceedings initiated for satisfaction of the vehicle loan.
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that no regularisation is possible, since the facility has been granted under a Central Government scheme, wherein, on default committed, the Bank is entitled to file a claim before the Central Government, who partially indemnifies the defaulted loan account. However, the Bank is expected to proceed with the recovery proceedings, and on its culmination, the amounts disbursed by the Central Government would have to be refunded.
2. The Bank has already raised a claim with respect to the above loan account, is the contention. In such circumstance, no regularisation is possible. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has expressed willingness to repay W.P.(C)No.10098/2017 the amount in installments, I am of the view that some indulgence can be shown to the petitioner and the following directions are issued.
(i) The petitioner shall pay the overdue amount of Rs.23,50,000/- in 15 equal monthly installments starting from 04.05.2017 and continued on the 04th of every succeeding month, with accrued interest in every three months.
(ii) If there is one default in payment, it shall be open for the respondent Bank to take such steps in accordance with law and resume the recovery proceedings.
The writ petition would stand disposed of.
