C.PAVITHRAN v. NORTH MALABAR GRAMAIN BANK
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
C.K.ABDUL RAHIM J.-----------------------------W.P(C) No.33029 of 2009-W ------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009.J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESIAct). The petitioner has got a remedy to file objections against such notice. That apart there is an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal provided against any further actions, under Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore the writ petition is totally unsustainable.
Having confronted with the above position, learned counselfor the petitioner expressed that the petitioner is ready and willing to regularize the account by paying the entire amount in default, within a reasonable period.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the housing loan in question was availed in the year2004 and there is serious default in repayment. Consequently, the account was treated as 'NPA'. Considering the chronic default, the respondents are not favouring regularization by extending time to effect payments.
Having considered facts and circumstances of the case W.P(C) No.33029 of 2009-W2and submissions of both sides, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown in the matter of permitting regularisationof the loan account, by payment of the defaulted amounts within areasonable time.
Hence, the petitioner is directed to make payment of the entire amounts pertaining to this instalments in default along with over due interest and expenses if any liable, in three equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.1.2010 and on or before the last day of the succeeding two months. If the defaulted amounts are cleared payment as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue future payments as per the original schedule of repayment. 5. It is made clear that on the event of failure to pay any of the instalments as stated above, the Bank will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of notice already issued, and on any such event the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings either before this Court or any other forum. Sd/-C.K.ABDUL RAHIMJUDGE //True Copy//abP.A to Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 07 Dec 2009. The bench was C K ABDUL REHIM.
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.