AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. In 2008, petitioners availed of a housing loan of Rs. 21,00,000/- from the respondent Bank. Although certain payments were made, they committed default, which resulted in the account being classified as NPA. On that basis, SARFAESI action was initiated and the possession of the asset also has been taken. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed and the petitioners request that they be permitted to pay the defaulted dues and on that basis the loan may be regularised.
Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank opposed the prayer of the petitioners pointing out the defaults committed by them and asserting their entitlement to continue the recovery action.
Although the competence of the Bank to continue recovery action cannot be doubted, in this writ petition, all that the petitioners seek is an opportunity to pay the amount that is due to the bank towards the defaulted installments and on that basis to get the loan regularised. In my view, if the petitioners clear the defaulted dues, there is no reason why the loan shall not be regularised. Therefore, I direct that the petitioners shall clear the defaulted dues in 2 equal monthly instalments. The first installment shall be paid on or before 20/4/13 and the second installment shall be paid on or before 20/5/13. Along with the instalments, the current EMI should also be paid. If payments are made as above, the Bank will regularise the loan and allow the petitioners to pay the balance liability as per the loan agreement. Subject to payment as above, coercive action will stand deferred and in case of default, respondents will be free to continue with the recovery proceedings already initiated.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.