Allowed

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

Kerala HC7 Feb 2019WP(C)/2959/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala permitted petitioners subject to strict compliance to repay outstanding bank dues via installments, despite jurisdictional bars on challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings, balancing recovery interests with petitioner hardship.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioners to pay off the outstanding amount of Rs.71,08,586/ including charges and interest in 20 monthly installments commencing from 28/03/2019.

Madana Mohanan Nair, Vs Kottayam District… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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. 2959 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MADANA MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, VENATTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, ALANAD P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 ARAVIND MOHAN, S/O.MADANA MOHANAN NAIR, VENATTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, ALANAD P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 SOMANATHAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, VENATTUMATTATHIL HOUSE, ALANAD P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE SRI.K.C.THOMAS (PALA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM- 686001.

¶13

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAPPALLY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAYAM- 686003.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI - SC

¶15

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

¶16

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioners assail certain proceedings

¶19

initiated and being pursued by the respondent

¶20

Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶22

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

¶23

When I deal with this writ petition, I

¶24

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

¶25

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).

¶26

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 3

¶27

I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by

¶28

the petitioners on its merits.

¶29

However, obviously being aware of this,

¶30

the learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or

¶32

latitude in order to enable them to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.

¶33

I, therefore, enquired with the learned

¶34

Standing Counsel for the Bank as to whether the

¶35

request on the part of the petitioners 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 Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶36

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 4

¶37

In view of the fact that the

¶38

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

¶39

into account the financial constraints and

¶40

burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶42

Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding,

¶43

which is stated to be Rs.71,08,586/- (Rupees Seventy One Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only) as on 31/01/2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more

¶44

than 20 instalments commencing from 28/03/2019.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶46

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

¶47

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 5

¶48

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶49

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned

¶50

amount of Rs.71,08,586/- in 20 equal monthly instalments along with applicable charges and interest, commencing from 28/03/2019. It goes

¶51

without saying that if there is any default in

¶52

making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand

¶53

vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to

¶54

recover the entire liability from the

¶55

petitioners by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.

¶56

I make it clear that the directions in

¶57

this judgment are peremptory in nature and that

¶58

the petitioners will have to comply with the

¶59

same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted

¶60

and that if the petitioners fail to comply with

¶61

the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/

¶62

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 6

¶63

proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition,

¶64

before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶65

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

MC/08.2.19

¶70

WP(C).No. 2959 of 2019 7

¶71

APPENDIX

¶72

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE BANK T	NOTICE DATED 23.05.2018 O THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE BANK T	NOTICE DATED 23.05.2018 O THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE BANK T	NOTICE DATED 23.05.2018 O THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE ADVOC 1ST PETITIONER.	NOTICE DATED 17.01.2019 ATE COMMISSIONER TO THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE ADVOC 2ND PETITIONER.	NOTICE DATED 17.01.2019 ATE COMMISSIONER TO THE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SENT BY THE ADVOC 3RD PETITIONER.	NOTICE DATED 17.01.2019 ATE COMMISSIONER TO THE

¶74

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶75

NIL

¶76

¶77

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madana Mohanan Nair, v. Kottayam 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

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

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

Siji Suresh, Vs Authorized Officer