IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37369 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARAYANAN A., S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, KALLUVAYAL HOUSE, THARUVANA P.O., MANANTHAVADI TALUK, WYNADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER & DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE REGIONAL OFFICE, COLOMBO TOWER, M.M.ALI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., WYNADU BRANCH, KALPETTA, WYNADU DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 37369 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 2005, creating security interest over the property concerned. But the repayment could not be effected on time; under which circumstance, the Bank declared the account as ‘NPA’ and proceeded with steps for recovering the entire amount, resorting to the remedy under SARFAESI Act, which is under challenge. 2. The main case projected by the petitioner is that, the loan availed by the petitioner was an agricultural loan and hence that he is entitled to get the benefit of waiver as per relevant provisions of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme (Ext.P1), which benefit is stated as not being extended to the petitioner. The balance, if any, after giving the benefit of waiver, as per Ext.P1 scheme, is agreed to be cleared by way of instalments. 3. The respondent Bank has filed statement pointing out that the loan, availed by the petitioner was 'never an agricultural loan' but a 'business loan' and that Ext.P1 Scheme not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is stated that, the total outstanding amount as on 31.05.2010 was Rs.4,81,538.57/- and in spite of issuance of several notices, even after declaration of the account as ‘NPA’ on 15.01.2005, there was no response from the petitioner. In September, 2009, the Bank communicated the benefit 2 WP(C) No.37369/2009 availed under the ‘OTS’, which was also not responded from the part of the petitioner. It was accordingly that, the possession was taken over under Section 13(4) of the Act on 20.04.2009. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that, the ‘overdue’ amount as on 31.05.2010 in respect of the defaulted instalment itself will come nearly Rs.1,13,036/- and unless and until the said amount is cleared, the question of regularization is not liable to be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the said liability and to have the loan account regularized. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to clear the said ‘overdue’ amount by way of ‘two’ equal monthly instalments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 30th of this month and the next and the last instalment to be effected on or before the 30th of the next month; subject to which, the loan account shall stand regularized. This will be in addition to the liability to clear the regular EMIs as well. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the ‘overdue’ amount or if any two consecutive defaults are made with regard to the regular EMIs, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc