Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 498 (KER)

Aneesh KP, S/o. Balan v. Canara Bank

2021-05-07

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

body2021
JUDGMENT : The appellant assails the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.7894/2021. 2. From the judgment in question, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, since the appellant/petitioner did not accede to the suggestion made by the Bank for paying off the total over dues in 10 instalments. 3. However, when this matter was considered by this court on 4/5/2021, the learned counsel for the Bank-Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, fairly submitted that he will obtain instructions from his client as to whether a better offer can be given to the appellant. 4. Today, the learned standing counsel for the Bank submitted that, if the appellant pays an amount of Rs.3½ lakhs within one month, he can be allowed to pay off the balance of the total outstanding in the loan account in 15 instalments. He added that, the total outstanding in the loan account is over Rs.22.6 lakhs; while the overdues is nearly Rs.9.4 lakhs. 5. When considering this appeal, we are fully aware that on account of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others [ (2010) 8 SCC 110 ] and Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. ( 2018 (1) KLT 784 ), our jurisdiction in this matter is extremely restricted. As has been settled by the Supreme Court, we can only give relief to the appellant in the manner as is conceded by the Bank. 6. Since Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar submits that the Bank can allow the appellant the liberty of paying off the total overdues in 15 instalments, provided he pays an amount of Rs.3 ½ lakhs in one month, we have no other option, but to accept the same. 7. Sri.C.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant also acceded to the aforesaid suggestion and prayed that the appeal be ordered on such terms. 8. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal, not because there is any error in the judgment assailed before us, but, on account of the consensus between the parties as afore and vacate the directions of the learned Single Judge, thus enabling the appellant/petitioner to pay off the total overdues in the manner below. 9. 8. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal, not because there is any error in the judgment assailed before us, but, on account of the consensus between the parties as afore and vacate the directions of the learned Single Judge, thus enabling the appellant/petitioner to pay off the total overdues in the manner below. 9. Resultantly, the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs on or before 7/6/2021; in which event, he will be allowed to pay off the balance of the total outstanding, along with all applicable charges and interest, in 15 equal monthly instalments, commencing from 12th of July, 2021. 10. It is needless to say that our directions afore are peremptory in its nature, and that, if the appellant refuses or fails to comply with any of them, the Bank will be at full liberty to initiate all legal action as are available to them, including under the SARFAESI Act, for recovery from the stage at which it is available today. This writ appeal is thus ordered.