Partly allowed

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

Kerala HC11 Feb 2019WP(C)/2970/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, hearing a writ petition under the SARFAESI Act, refused to adjudicate merits due to jurisdictional limits. However, it allowed a settlement, directing petitioners to pay overdue dues in ten installments starting March 28, 2019, plus regular EMIs to regularize the account.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to pay overdue Rs.9,15,948/- plus charges/interest in ten monthly installments from 28.03.2019 along with regular EMIs to regularize account.

Kiran Kumar T.S., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co… — 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. 2970 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 KIRAN KUMAR T.S., PARANKIMAVILA VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695042.

¶8

2 MINIMOL, W/O.KIRAN KUMAR T.S., PARANKIMAVILA VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695042.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.M.BABY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK,, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINGAMALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶14

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

WPC 2970/19

JUDGMENT

Through this writ petition, the petitioners call 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).

¶19

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

¶20

As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners 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 petitioners on its merits.

¶21

WPC 2970/19

¶22

¶23

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude to enable them to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶24

I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the 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 counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

WPC 2970/19

¶28

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.9,15,048/- as on 11.02.2019 in not more than ten instalments commencing from 28.03.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

¶30

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.9,15,948/- as on 11.02.2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 28.03.2019. They shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the original loan sanction. 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

¶31

¶32

WPC 2970/19

¶33

be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.

¶34

I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they 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.

¶35

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

tkv

WPC 2970/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE	OF RES	NOTICE DATED 14.07.2015 PONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE	OF RES	NOTICE DATED 07.12.2015 PONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE	OF RES	NOTICE DATED 08.10.2018 PONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY O	F PA	YMENT RECEIPTS.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE	OF RES	NOTICE DATED 23.01.2019 PONDENTS.

¶43

/TRUE COPY/

¶44

P.S. TO JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Elsy Paul, Vs State of Kerala

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

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