Partly allowed

Shaju v. the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/3122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings. Instead, at the parties' joint submission, the Court allowed the petitioner an opportunity to regularize his loan account by paying a lump sum followed by monthly installments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- by 28.03.2019 and balance in seven equal monthly installments from 02.05.2019 to regularize account.

Shaju Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank — 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

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3122 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SHAJU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, EDAKALATHUR HOUSE, VEMBENAD VILLAGE DESAM, POOVATHUR.P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680508.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK HEAD OFFICE BRANCH, KOVILAKATHUMPADOM, THRISSUR REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 680022

¶11

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE BRANCH, KOVILAKATHUMPADOM, THRISSUR-680022.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 3122/19

JUDGMENT

Through this writ petition, the petitioner

¶18

calls into question certain proceedings

¶19

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

¶20

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶21

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

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶24

As I proceed to consider the reliefs

¶25

prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am

¶26

conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration

¶27

of the legality or otherwise of the orders

¶28

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

¶29

WPC 3122/19

¶30

¶31

recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot

¶32

and do not propose to consider any of the legal

¶33

contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.

¶34

However, obviously being aware of this,

¶35

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations

¶36

of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the

¶37

petitioner may be granted some leniency or

¶38

latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶39

I, therefore, enquired with the learned

¶40

counsel for the Bank as to whether the request

¶41

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

¶42

are only interested in recovering and not in

¶43

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

¶44

WPC 3122/19

¶45

¶46

and that if the petitioner pays off the dues

¶47

quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶48

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

¶49

into account the financial constraints and

¶50

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 Bank.

¶51

The learned counsel for the Bank at

¶52

this time submits that the overdues as on

¶53

04.02.2019 comes to Rs.22,71,130/- and that if

¶54

the petitioner pays an amount Rs.5,00,000/- on

¶55

or before 28.03.2019 and the balance in seven

¶56

equal monthly installments, commencing from 02.05.2019, the account can be regularised by

¶57

the Bank.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶59

says that the petitioner is agreeable to the

¶60

above offer made by the Bank and therefore that

¶61

WPC 3122/19

¶62

¶63

the writ petition may be ordered granting

¶64

permission to the petitioner to pay off the

¶65

amount in the manner as afore.

¶66

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶67

petitioner to pay an amount Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2019; and if he makes this payment,

¶68

then he will be permitted to pay off the

¶69

balance, along with applicable charges and interest, in seven equal monthly instalments, commencing from 02.05.2019. He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs 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, 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

¶70

WPC 3122/19

¶71

¶72

stage it is on this date.

¶73

I make it clear that the directions in

¶74

this judgment are peremptory in nature and that

¶75

the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification

¶76

of this judgment, save in exceptional

¶77

circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions

¶78

herein, he will lose the benefit of this

¶79

judgment and he will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in

¶80

this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶81

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶82

SD/-

¶83

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 3122/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/08/2016, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE SECURITIZATION ACT.

Shaju v. the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju v. the Thrissur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reeja S.S. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Jiju K.B. Vs Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Seema Saji, Vs the Authorized Officer, Kottayam Co-Operarive Urban Bank Limited

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar

Leela.K Vs Babu

Ajikumar Damodaran Pillai Vs Chief Passport Officer