Disposed

Elsy Paul, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2019WP(C)/2960/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Despite jurisdictional bars to examining legality per Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew, the Court granted relief to facilitate recovery by allowing payment of outstanding dues via instalments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.22,29,411/- with charges/interest in 12 monthly installments commencing 28/03/2019; non-compliance forfeits benefit and reinstates proceedings.

Elsy Paul, Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 22ND MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ELSY PAUL, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.LATE PAUL, RESIDING AT VADAKELAN HOUSE, CHETTKULAM, VATTAPARAMBU P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2 SATHEESH PAUL, AGED 48 YEARS

¶9

S/O.LATE PAUL, RESIDING AT VADAKELAN HOUSE,

¶10

CHETTKULAM, VATTAPARAMBU P.O, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.B.DIPU SACH DEEV SRI.ARUN BABU

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶15

2 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM REGIONAL OFFICE, BUILDING NO.41/4263, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI- 682018.

¶16

3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM REGIONAL OFFICE, BUILDING NO.41/4263, MARKET ROAD, KOCHI- 682108.

¶17

SRI GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA-SC, SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners assail certain proceedings

¶22

initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶23

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶26

When I deal with this writ petition,

¶27

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).

¶28

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 3

¶29

I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to

¶30

consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.

¶31

However, obviously being aware of this,

¶32

the learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

I, therefore, enquired with the learned

¶36

counsel for the Bank as to whether the request

¶37

on the part of the petitioners can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks

¶38

are only interested in recovering and not in

¶39

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 petitioners pay off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶40

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 4

¶41

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

¶42

into account the financial constraints and

¶43

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.

¶44

The learned counsel for the Bank at

¶45

this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.22,29,411/- (Rupees Twenty

¶46

Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven only) as on 11/02/2019, along with other

¶47

charges and interest, in not more than 12 instalments commencing from 28/03/2019.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶49

says that the petitioners are agreeable to the

¶50

above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that

¶51

the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶52

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 5

¶53

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶54

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amount of Rs.22,29,411/-, along with applicable charges and interest, in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 28/03/2019. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making

¶55

the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the

¶56

entire liability from the petitioners by

¶57

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

¶58

I make it clear that the directions in

¶59

this judgment are peremptory in nature and that

¶60

the petitioners will have to comply with the

¶61

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

¶62

save in exceptional circumstances and that if

¶63

the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they will also be foreclosed

¶64

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 6

¶65

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.

¶66

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

MC/16.2.19

¶71

WP(C).No. 2960 of 2019 7

¶72

APPENDIX

¶73

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT	P1	CERTIFIED (C)NO.2745	COPY /18 DATED	OF 25.0	ORDER 1.2018.	IN W.P.
EXHIBIT	P2	COPY OF 04.12.2018	THE LET .	TER	NO.216	7/18 DATED
EXHIBIT	P3	COPY OF 22.10.2018	THE .	REPR	ESENTATI	ON DATED
EXHIBIT	P4	COPY OF NO	TICE DATED	17.	12.2018.
RESPOND	ENT'S/	S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
		(TRUE COPY)			PA TO	JUDGE

Elsy Paul, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elsy Paul, v. State of Kerala

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

K.Abdul Nazar, Vs the Manager

Muhammed Shafi Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Shaji, Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Sultan and Company, Vs State Bank of India

Kiran Kumar T.S., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co. Operative Bank

Unnikrishnan.v.M., Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.