Partly allowed

Muhammed Shafi v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Feb 2019WP(C)/2831/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings. Despite having no jurisdiction to inquire into the legality of impugned orders, the court granted the petitioner permission to clear dues in five installments to regularize the account, subject to strict compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted permission to pay Rs. 3.5 lakhs plus applicable charges and interest in 5 equal monthly installments commencing from 15.03.2019, along with regular EMIs from February onwards, to re

Muhammed Shafi Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 19TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED SHAFI AGED 42 YEARS S/O. ALATTU ABDU RAHMAN, ALATTU HOUSE, KINALOOR P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 612. BY ADVS. SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL) SRI.ABDUL JALEEL ONATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD BALUSSERY BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, BALUSSERY KOZHIKODE 673 612, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, LCRD/KOZHIKODE DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD, ARAYADATHU PALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 016. BY ADVS. SRI.LAWRENCE D CUNHA - SC SRI.GODWIN JOSE SRI.KESHAV KRISHNAN

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶12

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls into question 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).

¶15

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

¶16

As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner herein, 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.

¶17

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶18

¶19

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned 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 him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶20

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 dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶21

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 him an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the

¶22

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶23

¶24

Bank.

¶25

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs as on 31.01.2019 in not more than 5 instalments commencing from 15.03.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶27

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs as on 31.01.2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 5 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.03.2019 . He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs from February 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 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,

¶28

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No. 2831 of 2019

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 17.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPTS EVIDENCING PAYMENTS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.11.018 IN M.C. NO. 500/2018 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE.

Muhammed Shafi v. the Federal Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shafi v. the Federal 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

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

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

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

K.Abdul Nazar, Vs the Manager

Shaji, Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Gouri Amma, Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.