Disposed

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

Kerala HC11 Feb 2019WP(C)/3101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings. Acknowledging jurisdictional limits on reviewing the bank's actions, the court exercised lex specialis discretion to allow petitioners an opportunity to clear overdue dues by a specific deadline to regularize their loan account, warning that failure would result in loss of this benefit. (34 words)

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay Rs.2,04,576/- and March 2019 EMI by 28/03/2019 to regularize account; failure voids this permission.

Unnikrishnan.v.M., Vs LIC Housing Finance 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

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 UNNIKRISHNAN.V.M., AGED 48 YEARS S/O. VARIJAKHAN, “SWATHI”, NEAR GHS GIRLS, PANTHALAYANI, PANTHALAYANI P.O., KOYILANDY 673 305.

¶8

2 VARIJAKSHAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O. APPUKUTTY VAIDYAR, “SWATHI”, NEAR GHS GIRLS, PANTHALAYANI, PANTHALAYANI P.O., KOYILANDY 673 305, (PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF VIYYUR VILLAGE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION.)

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.AISHWARYA S.R. SMT.VEENA HARI

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE, BOMBAY LIFE BUILDINGS, 2ND FLOOR, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, FOR MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HARIKUMAR.S., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM, 9TH FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, M.g. ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJENDRAN, SC,LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD

¶12

SRI.N.RAJENDRAN-SC

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Through this writ petition, the

¶17

petitioners call into question certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the

¶18

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

¶19

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶22

As I proceed to consider the reliefs

¶23

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

¶24

of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110)

¶25

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 3

¶26

and followed recently in Authorised Officer,

¶27

SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I,

¶28

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

¶29

the petitioners on its merits.

¶30

However, obviously being aware of

¶31

this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned,

¶32

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

¶33

learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the

¶34

request on the part of the petitioners can be

¶35

allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations

¶36

and legal proceedings against such recovery.

¶37

The learned counsel has fairly submitted that

¶38

the Bank is concerned about recovery at the

¶39

earliest and that if the petitioners pay off

¶40

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 4

¶41

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

¶42

proceedings initiated by the Bank would

¶43

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.

¶44

The learned counsel for the Bank at

¶45

this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.2,04,576/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only) as on 11/02/2019 on or before 28/03/2019 along with the EMI for March 2019, and that the account

¶46

can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶47

The learned counsel for the

¶48

petitioners says that the petitioners are

¶49

agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank

¶50

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 5

¶51

and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners

¶52

to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶53

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶54

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.2,04,576/- as on 11/02/2019, along with applicable charges and interest on or before 28/03/2019. They shall

¶55

also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs thereafter. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty

¶56

to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if

¶57

there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners by 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

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 6

¶61

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 will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances 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.

¶62

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

MC/15.2.19

¶67

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2019 7

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C. 609/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶71

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶72

NIL

¶73

¶74

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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