Allowed

Sumadevi.R v. Federal Bank

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/2547/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a SARFAESI Act writ petition petitioning for suspension of bank proceedings and permitted the petitioner to clear outstanding dues in six equal monthly installments instead of immediate payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay total outstanding amount with interest and charges in six equal monthly installments commencing from 15.03.2019; default voids the benefit.

Sumadevi.R Vs Federal Bank — 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 WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SUMADEVI.R AGED 38 YEARS W/O ANILKUMAR S.K 'GOWREESAM' M/S DEVI MATS, BUILDING NO. 11/863, MARUTHAMAN BHAGOM, THEKKETHERI.P.O, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM 691 552, NOW RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS, B4, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION COMPOUND, PULLADU.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN KUM.PRIYANKA JOSE SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 FEDERAL BANK PATTAZHI BRANCH, KOLLAM 691 552. 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK, PATTAZHI BRANCH, KOLLAM 691 552

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.BINOY DAVIS

¶11

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

¶12

WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner assails certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶17

When I deal with this writ petition, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.

¶18

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned

¶19

WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶20

¶21

counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable her to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.

¶22

I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶23

In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing her an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits

¶25

WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶26

¶27

that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.4,98,581/- as on 29.01.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 6 instalments commencing from 15.03.2019.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶29

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned amount in 6 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.03.2019, along with all applicable charges and interest. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.

¶30

I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment

¶31

WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶32

¶33

will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and she will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶34

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Dxy

¶39

WP(C).No. 2547 of 2019

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE PATTAZHI PANCHAYAT DATED 29/12/2014. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 23/10/2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

Sumadevi.R v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumadevi.R v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Panniyankara Oil Mils, Vs the Auhtorized Officer

Aji Krishnan, Vs State Bank of India