Allowed

Sathyabhama M., v. Kozhikkode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC18 Feb 2019WP(C)/3420/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings, the Hon'ble Court, acknowledging jurisdictional limitations on merits but seeking equitable relief, granted petitioner permission to regularize her loan account by paying overdue dues in installments plus regular EMIs, warning of consequences for default.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay overdue amount of Rs.2,92,445/- via immediate payment of Rs.75,000/- and balance in eight monthly installments along with regular EMIs.

Sathyabhama M., Vs Kozhikkode 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

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SATHYABHAMA M., AGED 56 YEARS

¶8

W/O.APPUNNI, MALASSERY, KAYANIPPADAM HOUSE, MANNOOR PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673328.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, PB NO.503, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKKODE, PIN-673002, REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶12

2 BRANCH MANAGER, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., FAROKE BRANCH, KALLAI ROAD PO, KOZHIKKODE DIST., PIN-673002.

¶13

P.C.SASIDHARAN SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶20

As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner 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,

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶23

therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.

¶24

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

¶25

I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner 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 petitioner pays off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶29

and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing her an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶30

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.2,92,445/- as on 18/02/2019 of which Rs.75,000/- is to be paid on or before 28/03/2019 and balance in not more than eight monthly instalments commencing from 02/05/2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶32

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.2,92,445/- as on 18/02/2019, of which Rs.75,000/- is to be paid on or before 28/03/2019 and balance along with

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶35

applicable charges and interest, in eight equal monthly instalments commencing from 02/05/2019. She shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, her loan account would stand regularised and she 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 stage it is on this date.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶39

challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition

¶40

before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶41

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶42

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 3420 of 2019

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 12.02.2018. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 15.01.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.2.2019.

¶50

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sathyabhama M., v. Kozhikkode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyabhama M., v. Kozhikkode District Co-Operative Bank 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.P.Peter, Vs Abhilash

C.Madhavan Vs the Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager

A.C.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Venkatesh.B.M Vs Chief Information Commissioner

Balakrishnan T.v., Vs the Authorised Officer/General Manager

Francis, Vs Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Limited