Vijayakumar vs the Authorized Officer

Vijayakumar vs The Authorized Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 01, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1305222

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1305222
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice N.Nagaresh
Decided On: Feb 01, 2024
Case Number: WP(C)/3716/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vijayakumar

Respondent

The Authorized Officer

Excerpt

.....of as per ext.p2 judgment. however, despite earnest efforts, the petitioner could not raise the amount for making repayment in compliance of ext.p2 judgment. thereafter, the petitioner managed to pay an amount of ₹1,50,000/- in the month ofdecember, 2023.3. now, the petitioner has decided to sell his propertyand has entered into an agreement with a bona fide purchaser. however, the bank is reluctant to provide time to clear off the dues. the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay the overdue amount in instalments, if he is granted some time. hence, the petitioner has approached this court filing this writ petition.4. heard. taking into consideration the facts of the case, the writpetition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits 10% of the total outstanding as upfront payment and makes a concrete proposal for one time settlement, within a period of two weeks from today, the bank shall consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. if the petitioner makes 10% payment of the total outstanding as directed above and submits an application for one timesettlement, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till the bank takes a decision on the proposal. sd/- n.nagaresh judge hmh appendix of wp(c) 3716/2024 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 a true copy of the notice dated respondent to the petitioner exhibit p2 a true copy of the judgment dated court in w.p.(c). no. 36847/2022 exhibit p3 a true copy of the agreement dated petitioner and the bona fide purchaser

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3716 OF 2024 PETITIONER VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETER, M/S. DHANAM DAIRY FARM, SIVASAKTHI VILASAM, CHERUMOODU, VELLIMON PO, PERINAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691511 BY ADVS. BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THOMAS C.ABRAHAM BASIL MATHEW RESPONDENT: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, YWCA BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, MG ROAD, SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. SUNIL SHANKAR A SANDHRA.S(K/001610/2021) JERIN GEORGE(K/863/2023) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024 The petitioner had availed three Agricultural Loans from the respondent-Bank by mortgaging his agricultural property, for functioning his Dairy Farm. Initially, the petitioner was regularly maintaining the said loan accounts. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there occurred huge loss in the petitioner's business and the respondent initiated recovery proceedings.

2. Challenging the recovery proceedings, the

petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.36847 of 2022. The same was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. However, despite earnest efforts, the petitioner could not raise the amount for making repayment in compliance of Ext.P2 Judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner managed to pay an amount of ₹1,50,000/- in the month of

December, 2023.

3. Now, the petitioner has decided to sell his property

and has entered into an agreement with a bona fide purchaser. However, the Bank is reluctant to provide time to clear off the dues. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay the overdue amount in Instalments, if he is granted some time. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court filing this writ petition.

4. Heard. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the writ

petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits 10% of the total outstanding as upfront payment and makes a concrete proposal for One Time Settlement, within a period of two weeks from today, the Bank shall consider the same and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. If the petitioner makes 10% payment of the total outstanding as directed above and submits an application for One Time

Settlement, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till the Bank takes a decision on the proposal. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3716/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 36847/2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED PETITIONER AND THE BONA FIDE PURCHASER

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Vijayakumar vs The Authorized Officer Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice N.Nagaresh