DINEESH v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.8,96,046/- (Rupees Eight lakh ninety six thousand and forty six only) along with accrued interest, cost and bank charges from the petitioner and regularise the…
Judgment
SRI. K.S.ARUNKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 14076 OF 2025 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner.
During the course of hearing, petitioner has confined the relief to an opportunity for repaying the overdue amount in instalments and to obtain regularisation of the loan accounts.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioner availed a personal loan and an ordinary loan from the respondent bank and committed default in repayment and the overdue amount, in respect of both the loans put together, as on 04.04.2025, would come to Rs.8,96,046/- (Rupees Eight lakh ninety six thousand and forty six only). It is further submitted that though proceedings for recovery have been initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent bank is willing to accept repayment of the overdue amount in limited instalments and regularise the loan accounts. WP(C) NO. 14076 OF 2025 3
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to repay the overdue amount of Rs.8,96,046/- (Rupees Eight lakh ninety six thousand and forty six only) along with any accrued interest, cost and charges in twelve instalments and thereafter, if the amount so directed is repaid within the time as directed above, to have the loan accounts regularised.
Operative part
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.8,96,046/- (Rupees Eight lakh ninety six thousand and forty six only) along with accrued interest, cost and bank charges from the petitioner and regularise the loan account of the petitioner in the following manner:-
(i) The petitioner shall pay the overdue amount of Rs.8,96,046/- (Rupees Eight lakh ninety six thousand and forty six only) along with any accrued interest, cost and charges in twelve equated monthly instalments;
(ii)The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.04.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the last working day of each succeeding months; WP(C) NO. 14076 OF 2025 4 (iii)Petitioner shall continue to pay the regular EMI’s/instalments along with the instalments directed above;
(iv) In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the law;
(v) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 14076 OF 2025 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14076/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 7.3.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSING LOAN Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 7.3.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE VANITHA LOAN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.