Disposed

Panniyankara Oil Mils, v. the Auhtorized Officer

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/1362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court addressed petitioners seeking permission to repay a bank loan in instalments and challenging recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. After noting a pending One-Time-Settlement offer, the Court directed the Bank to decide expeditiously and deferred the Advocate Commissioner's notice pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of the One-Time-Settlement application expeditiously and defer further proceedings under the Advocate Commissioner's notice until the Bank's decision.

Panniyankara Oil Mils, Vs the Auhtorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1362 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 PANNIYANKARA OIL MILS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 9/622A, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.B. KRISHNADAS.

¶8

2 P.K. KARTHIYAYANI, W/O.T.K.BALAN,11/429, KARTHIKA, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673032.

¶9

3 T.B.KRISHNADAS, S/O.T.K.BALAN, 11//429, KARTHIKA, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673032.

¶10

4 K.T.RAJASREE, W/O. T.B.KRISHNADAS, 11/429, KARTHIKA, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673032. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE AUHTORIZED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT AND BRANCH HEAD, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶13

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD, MAIN BRANCH, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673032.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN - SC SRI.MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU) SRI.SYRIAC JOSEPH SRI.T.G.PAUL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1362/19

JUDGMENT

The limited prayer of the petitioners in

¶20

this writ petition is that the respondent-Bank

¶21

be directed to permit them to pay off the

¶22

amounts, in a loan facility availed of by them

¶23

from the said Bank, in monthly instalments.

¶24

I see that the petitioners are also

¶25

challenging Exts.P4 and P5, which are the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, and

¶26

the notice of the Advocate Commissioner

¶27

appointed by it, under Section 14 of the

¶28

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

¶29

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶30

Going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v.

¶31

Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed

¶32

recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479), it is now well settled that my jurisdiction to interdict proceedings

¶33

under the SARFAESI Act is extremely limited,

¶34

WPC 1362/19

¶35

¶36

because the petitioners concededly have other efficacious alternative statutory remedies.

¶37

However, on the issue of settlement of the loan account, I certainly can intervene within the parameters of law and I, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the Bank, when this matter was taken up on 22.01.2019, whether they would be willing to allow the petitioners any benefit for a settlement. I made this query also because it was submitted before me by the Bank’s learned Standing Counsel as well as by Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that an attempt of settlement is being explored out of Court.

¶38

Today, when the matter was called, Sri. K.P. Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel for

¶39

the petitioners, instructed by Sri. Millu Dandapani, submits that his clients have already preferred an offer for One-Time-Settlement to the Assistant Vice President and Branch Head of the Federal Bank, Cherootty Road, Calicut-the 2^nd

¶40

WPC 1362/19

¶41

¶42

respondent herein, and he prays that the Bank be directed to consider the same in terms of law.

¶43

Bank affirms that the proposal of the

¶44

petitioners has been received by the Bank and he says that it has been referred to the higher Authorities, for their sanction and approval. According to him, this offer will be considered by the Bank as expeditiously as is possible and that they are willing to give all eligible benefits to the petitioners, provided their attempts at settlement are bonafide. He adds

¶45

that, in fairness, the Bank is willing to defer all further action based on Ext.P5, until a decision on the One-Time-Settlement proposal is taken by the Bank.

¶46

In the afore circumstances, since it is now conceded that an offer for One-Time-Settlement has already been made by the petitioners which

¶47

is pending consideration by the Bank, I deem it appropriate to direct the competent among the

¶48

WPC 1362/19

¶49

¶50

respondents to dispose of the said application

¶51

as expeditiously as is possible and to communicate the resultant order to the petitioners; until which time, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will stand deferred.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 1362/19

6 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER FOR CC LOAN WITH ACCOUNT NO.10565500003983 DTD.10/06/2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BEARING NO. LCRD/AJV,WD/91/2017-18 DTD.19/02/2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DTD.06/03/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12/09/2018 IN M.C NO. 153/2018 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD 03/11/2018.

Panniyankara Oil Mils, v. the Auhtorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panniyankara Oil Mils, v. the Auhtorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Sudarshanan, Vs State of Kerala

Athikal Muhammed Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Ahamed Kunhi K., Vs Union of India

Shanavas.K.v Vs the Manager

Sumadevi.R Vs Federal Bank

Aji Krishnan, Vs State Bank of India