Allowed

Muhammed Moulavi, v. the Ponnani Co-Operative Urban Bank.

Kerala HC19 Feb 2019WP(C)/3721/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cooperating with the bank's counselor, the court directed petitioners to repay outstanding dues of Rs. 27,20,656/- in 15 monthly installments starting March 25, 2019, under SARFAESI proceedings, warning that default would void the concession and halt further challenges.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay off the total outstanding amount of Rs. 27,20,656/- along with charges and interest in 15 equal monthly installments commencing from 25/03/2019.

Muhammed Moulavi, Vs the Ponnani Co-Operative Urban 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

TUESDAY,

¶5

THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 MUHAMMED MOULAVI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O AYAMU, KONDAKATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERUMUKK, ALAMKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679585.

¶9

2 SAKKEENA, W/O MUHAMMED, CHUNTANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, NANNAMMUKK SOUTH POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679575.

¶10

3 SUBAIDHA, D/O KHADEEJA, CHUNTANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, NANNAMMUKK SOUTH POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679575.

¶11

BY ADV. K VIDYASAGAR

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

THE PONNANI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO.M 372, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY VIJAYAKUMAR V.V., ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN-679577.

¶14

SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM-SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioners assail certain proceedings

¶19

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).

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶22

When I deal with this writ petition, 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)

¶23

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.

¶24

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019 3

¶25

However, obviously being aware of this, the

¶26

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of

¶27

jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.

¶28

I, therefore, enquired with the learned

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

In view of the fact that the proceedings

¶32

initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate

¶33

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

¶34

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019 4

¶35

opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶36

The learned counsel for the Bank at this

¶37

time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to

¶38

pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be

¶39

Rs.27,20,656/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only), as on

¶40

16/02/2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 15 instalments commencing from 25/03/2019.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners says

¶42

that the petitioners are agreeable to the above offer

¶43

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.

¶44

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶45

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amount of Rs.27,20,656/-, along with applicable charges and interest, in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing from 25/03/2019. It goes without saying that if there

¶46

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

¶47

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019 5

¶48

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

¶49

I make it clear that the directions in this

¶50

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 will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the

¶51

benefit of this judgment and they will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶52

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

MC/02.3.19

¶57

WP(C).No. 3721 of 2019 6

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CMP.1848/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI UNDER SECTION 14(1) OF THE SARFAESI ACT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29.1.2019 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Muhammed Moulavi, v. the Ponnani Co-Operative Urban Bank.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Moulavi, v. the Ponnani Co-Operative Urban 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

Venkatesh.B.M Vs Chief Information Commissioner

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

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

Selvanose Vs the Assistant Engineer

Jayaprakash, Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Penda Marketing Private Ltd. Vs the Branch Manager