Allowed

Sunil Kumar.M v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Feb 2019WP(C)/2550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Acknowledging judicial bar on merits review, the High Court allowed the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments to regularize the account, permitting temporary cessation of recovery proceedings conditioned on strict compliance. Failure to comply would forfeit this benefit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed granting the petitioner an opportunity to pay off the overdue amount of Rs. 6,62,622/- in the manner specified by the Bank, conditioning regularization of the loan account

Sunil Kumar.M Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — 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

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR.M AGED 44 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, MANIYOTH, PUTHUPPANAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673 105.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, PB NO. 503, POST CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 002.

¶11

2 THE MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GOKULAM TOWERS, CONVENT ROAD, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673 101.

¶12

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Through this writ petition, the

¶17

petitioner calls into question certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

¶18

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

¶19

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶22

As I proceed to consider the reliefs

¶23

prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration

¶24

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

¶25

that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110)

¶26

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 3

¶27

and followed recently in Authorised Officer,

¶28

SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to

¶29

consider any of the legal contentions raised by

¶30

the petitioner on its merits.

¶31

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned,

¶33

the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶34

learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as to

¶35

whether the request on the part of the

¶36

petitioner can be allowed, especially on

¶37

account of the fact that the Banks are only

¶38

interested in recovering and not in maintaining

¶39

and keep pending litigations and legal

¶40

proceedings against such recovery. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the

¶41

Bank is concerned about recovery at the

¶42

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 4

¶43

earliest and that if the petitioner pays off

¶44

the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶45

proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking

¶46

into account the financial constraints and

¶47

burden that have been alleged and pleaded by

¶48

the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶49

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶50

Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.6,62,622/- (Six Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Two only) as on 31/01/2019, provided he pays Rs.2 Lakhs on or before 28/03/2019 and the balance in 7 equal monthly instalments commencing from 02/05/2019 and that

¶51

the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶52

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 5

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶54

says that the petitioner is 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.

¶55

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶56

petitioner to pay off the aforementioned

¶57

overdue amount of Rs6,62,622/- as on 31/01/2019, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) shall be paid on or before 28/03/2019 and the balance amount in 7 equal

¶58

monthly instalments commencing from 02/05/2019. He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs from February, 2019 onwards without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he would then be at liberty to

¶59

service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this

¶60

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 6

¶61

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.

¶62

I make it clear that the directions in

¶63

this judgment are peremptory in nature and that

¶64

the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner

¶65

that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit

¶66

of this judgment and he will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned

¶67

in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶68

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

MC/08.2.19

¶73

WP(C).No. 2550 of 2019 7

¶74

APPENDIX

¶75

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FROM AMRITA HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPLICATION IN M.C. 312/2018 OF CVJM, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.

¶77

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶78

MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Sunil Kumar.M v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar.M v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Sherry.K.Joseph Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

Mithun M.P, Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Banak

Vijayan.v.P Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Madana Mohanan Nair, Vs Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Tom.C.George, Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Siji Suresh, Vs Authorized Officer