Allowed

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

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019WP(C)/3204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, barred from examining merits under SARFAESI Act, allowed a writ petition to grant the petitioners leniency. The Court directed them to pay the overdue principal, charges, and interest in four equal monthly installments while paying regular EMIs to regularise the account.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay overdue amount of Rs. 1,86,322/- plus interest and charges in four equal monthly installments commencing from 28.03.2019.

Seema Saji, Vs the Authorized Officer, Kottayam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3204 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SEEMA SAJI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. SOMAN, CHIRAMATTEL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

2 SAJIMON C.J., AGED 35 YEARS, CHIRAMATTEL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO. 421, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 3204/19

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).

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

WPC 3204/19

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

WPC 3204/19

¶26

¶27

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.1,86,322/- as on 13.02.2019 in not more than four instalments commencing from 28.03.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners say 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.

¶29

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.1,86,322/- as on 13.02.2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in four 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 be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners by

¶30

WPC 3204/19 5

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶34

Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge

stu

WPC 3204/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER' EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/7/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR POSSESSION DATED 7/2/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶41

/true copy/

¶42

P.S. TO JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Reeja S.S. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Beena Vasanthan Vs the Branch Manager