N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH Vs. SUBRAMANYESHWARA COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tone for this judgment may be set by quoting what Richard Brinsley Sheridan, an acclaimed Irish dramatist of 18th century, on being asked by his tailor for the payment of at least the interest on his bill amount, had retorted:

(2.) In these Petitions, Petitioner a designated Senior Advocate being a chronic loan defaulter of the 1st Respondent - Cooperative Bank is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the coercive loan recovery proceedings instituted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on the ground that the due procedure established under law has not been followed. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner argues that his client was not given the reprieve admissible on account of Covid -19 Pandemic and that he had no fair deal at the hands of the lender - Bank. Having so argued, he lastly said that should a period of three months be granted, entire loan amount would be cleared by recourse to 'taking over' or the like.

(3.) After service of notice, Respondents have entered appearance through their Panel Advocate and filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petitions. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Bank makes vehement submission in justification of the subject coercive proceedings of loan recovery. She points out that the Petitioner had borrowed a huge sum of Rs.1.50 Crore way back in February, 2017 agreeing to repay the same in 120 equivalized monthly installments each of Rs.2,37,431.00. The rate of interest is 14.50% per annum with monthly rests. The said loan account was branded as NPA on 2/7/2017 i.e., within five months of availment, Petitioner proving to be a loan defaulter; she also draws attention of the Court to the letters dtd. 19/12/2020 & 04. 07.2020 wherein the Petitioner having acknowledged the debt, had sought for extension of time for regularizing the loan account; however, the same came to be rejected. Turning pages of several interim orders, counsel reads out the conditions subject to which reprieve was granted and complains that these conditions have remained repeatedly unfulfilled. She hastens to add that the Petitioner does not have any respect for the court orders and that the Cheque given by him assuring its encashment on presentation, has bounced, despite he having been warned of possible contempt action should that happen. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the Writ Petitions.