Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court

Wp(C).No. 5401 Of 2013 (A) vs By Adv. Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf on 19 November, 2012
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH
2013/22ND PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 5401 of 2013 (A)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
V.P.SHANMUGHAN AGED 45 YEARS
S/O KUNHAPPU @ APPU
VADAKKEPURAKKAL HOUSE THEKKUMMURI
TIRUR - 676 101.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------
1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN- 676 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 101 R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN R1
& 2 BY ADV. SRI. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI. K. JAYESH
MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5401/13
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXTS. OF RESPONDENTS
Wp(C).No. 5401 Of 2013 (A) vs By Adv. Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf on 19 November, 2012
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/75974947/ 1
ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER OF CASH CREDIT FACILITY TO
THE PETITIONER DT 6.6.02. ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE STAEMENT OF ACCOUNT
FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/4/11 TO 26.2.13.
ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE HO CIRCULAR NO.17C-2002 DT 6.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE
SAM DEPARTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT BANK. ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE
CIRCULAR NO.ARMD/1/2011 DT 8.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE SAM DEPARTMENT OF THE
RESPONDENT BANK. //True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 5401 OF 2013
===================
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2013 J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Bank.
2. Petitioner challenges the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank. Petitioner availed of a Cash Credit
facility, the limit of which was enhanced to `15 lakhs. According to the Bank, the account became irregular.
Therefore the Bank classified the account as NPA. On that basis, Ext.P2 notice under Section 13 (2) of the
SARFAESI Act was issued. It was at that stage the petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash
Ext.P2 and to direct the Bank to regularise the loan account on the petitioner paying the interest outstanding
over and above the limit.
3. The case of the petitioner is that there has not been any default and that the entire `15 lakhs was paid by him
in three instalments of `5 lakh each on 17/5/12, 18/5/12 and 19/5/12. Therefore, the petitioner says that there
has not been any default on his side and that, as on 26/2/13, the amount outstanding in the account was below
the limit sanctioned to him. On this basis, WPC.No.5401/13
:2 :
petitioner impugns the recovery action initiated by the Bank.
4. However from the statement filed by the respondent Bank and the documents that are annexed, I am
inclined to think that this is a case where the account was irregular. Annexure R1 (b) is the statement of
accounts for the period from 01/4/11 to 26/02/2013. A close perusal of Annexure R1(b) shows that there has
not been any transaction in the account since 30/4/11. On the other hand, occasionally the petitioner was
servicing the interest that fell due and finally he paid the amount that was due. In other words, this was not an
account which was used by the petitioner for the business purposes and in that sense the account was
irregular. It is on this basis, the Bank alleges that there was a violation of the conditions of Annexure R1(a),
by which the facility was sanctioned to the petitioner. That apart, in para 5 of the statement, Bank also alleges
that the petitioner failed in complying with the condition such as submission of periodical audited balance
sheet and trading accounts. In such circumstances, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner. On the
other hand, if it is the case of the petitioner that what is stated in the documents produced before this Court by
Wp(C).No. 5401 Of 2013 (A) vs By Adv. Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf on 19 November, 2012
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/75974947/ 2
the Bank WPC.No.5401/13
:3 :
are incorrect, such controversy will require adjudication of factual disputes, which this Court is unable to
entertain in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an
instalment facility to pay the amounts that are due from him. Considering the request, it is directed that the
petitioner shall pay the amounts that are due to the Bank in 10 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment
shall be paid on or before 30/3/13 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before the last working
day of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, further coercive action against the petitioner
will stand deferred and in case of default, Bank will be free to continue the recovery action already initiated.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
Wp(C).No. 5401 Of 2013 (A) vs By Adv. Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf on 19 November, 2012
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/75974947/ 3