Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kavitha Vs. Authorised Officer

Kavitha vs Authorised Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 27, 2014
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153841

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kavitha

Respondent

Authorised Officer

Excerpt

.....- - - - - - w.p.(c).no. 4069 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated 27th june, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - judgment petitioners are daughter and mother who are aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated for satisfaction of an education loan availed of, for the education of the 1st petitioner. the contention of the petitioners is that, substantial amounts have been paid to the loan account and now a scheme is available by which, the central government has granted interest subsidy for education loans. in such circumstances, petitioners contend that the securitization proceedings issued under section 13(2) as evidenced by ext.p1 cannot be proceeded with at present. petitioners also contend that the 1st petitioner despite having completed the professional course, has not obtained any employment till now. wp(c).4069/14 2 2. the learned counsel for the respondent bank however, submits that an amount of rs.5,41,000/- was availed in the year 2003 and repayment was to commence only from the year 2008. the period of the loan itself stood expired in 2013 and as on 24.02.2014, the total arrears due would be rs.8,35,997/-. it is also submitted that as per the scheme, which has been produced by the bank as ext.r1(c) along with a counter affidavit, the petitioners, as per the computation made by the bank, are eligible to subsidy of rs.1,02,098/-. the bank has also forwarded the proposal to the central government which is the ultimate authority to decide on the exact amounts to be granted as subsidy. in such circumstances, the respondents contend that the petitioners in any event, are liable to make good the balance outstanding in the loan account. wp(c).4069/14 3 3. however, considering the impecunious circumstances pleaded by the petitioners as also the discrepancy in the computation, it is directed that the bank shall keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance on compliance of the following directions.4. petitioners shall produce the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE27H DAY OF JUNE20146TH ASHADHA, 1936` WP(C).No. 4069 of 2014 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONERS : ------------------- 1. KAVITHA D/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, 'GOKULAM', INCHAVILA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691601.

2. T.KALAVATHY AMMA, W/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, 'GOKULAM', INCHAVILA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691601. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, ARPAN TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN-691008.

2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, ARPAN TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN-691008.

3. THE BRANCH/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRIKKADAVOOR BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, NELLIYIL ROAD BUILDING, THRIKKADAVOOR.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691601. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2706-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).NO. 4069 OF2014(G) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION132)OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED0502.2013 BEARING NUMBER DGM/RQASMECCC/NPA/SUV. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED2106.2013 BEARING NUMBER SARC/KLM/ EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED0712.2013 BEARING NUMBER AGM1KLM/74/3 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DT1111/2003, DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PETITIONERS AND GUARANTOR TO THE LOAN. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT OF THE DUES INCLUDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND OTHER CHARGES/EXPENSES FROM62/2013 AS ON242/2014. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR PROVIDING RELIEF ON INTEREST OUTSTANDING FOR ALL EDUCATIONAL LOANS SANCTIONED AVAILED UP TO313/2009 AND OUTSTANDING AS ON3112/2013. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 4069 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 27th June, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

Petitioners are daughter and mother who are aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated for satisfaction of an education loan availed of, for the education of the 1st petitioner. The contention of the petitioners is that, substantial amounts have been paid to the loan account and now a Scheme is available by which, the Central Government has granted interest subsidy for education loans. In such circumstances, petitioners contend that the securitization proceedings issued under Section 13(2) as evidenced by Ext.P1 cannot be proceeded with at present. Petitioners also contend that the 1st petitioner despite having completed the professional course, has not obtained any employment till now. WP(C).4069/14 2 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank however, submits that an amount of Rs.5,41,000/- was availed in the year 2003 and repayment was to commence only from the year 2008. The period of the loan itself stood expired in 2013 and as on 24.02.2014, the total arrears due would be Rs.8,35,997/-. It is also submitted that as per the Scheme, which has been produced by the Bank as Ext.R1(c) along with a counter affidavit, the petitioners, as per the computation made by the Bank, are eligible to subsidy of Rs.1,02,098/-. The Bank has also forwarded the proposal to the Central Government which is the ultimate authority to decide on the exact amounts to be granted as subsidy. In such circumstances, the respondents contend that the petitioners in any event, are liable to make good the balance outstanding in the loan account. WP(C).4069/14 3 3. However, considering the impecunious circumstances pleaded by the petitioners as also the discrepancy in the computation, it is directed that the Bank shall keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance on compliance of the following directions.

4. Petitioners shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the Bank within a period of one week from today and the respondent Bank shall issue a statement of accounts indicating the interest subsidy applied for as also the balance dues outstanding. On the petitioners making a request, the respondent Bank shall also grant ten monthly instalments to pay off the balance amounts which shall necessarily start on any date specified by the Bank in August, 2014. The interest subsidy applied for by the petitioners shall not, at present, be demanded by the Bank from them. WP(C).4069/14 4 However, the same shall depend upon the relief granted by the Central Government and if there is any reduction, petitioners shall be liable to make good such amounts. Needles to say, if any amounts, more than that applied for by the Bank, is granted as interest subsidy, then, such excess amounts shall also be credited to the petitioners, if they have satisfied the entire dues as directed by this Court. With respect to the instalments, if two consecutive defaults are committed, the respondent Bank shall have authority to revive the recovery proceedings from the stage at which it has been kept in abeyance by this Court, as indicated in Ext.P1. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial