Partly allowed

Komalakumari.S v. the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2019WP(C)/383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings, the Kerala High Court, despite noting jurisdictional bars on substantive review, permitted petitioners to pay the outstanding bank dues in twelve equal monthly installments. Default would result in vacating the benefit.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay total outstanding amount including interest and charges in twelve equal monthly installments commencing from 30.08.2019.

Komalakumari.S Vs the Karamana Co-Operative… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.383 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1 KOMALAKUMARI.S, TC 51/1211, KOMALA BHAVAN,PADARNNA PLAVILA SATHYAN NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695019

¶7

2 JAYARAJ, TC 51/1211, KOMALA BHAVAN, PADARNNA PLAVILA SATHYAN NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695019

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE SMT.M.LISHA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE KARAMANA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO 1761/. KARAMANA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(AUTHORISED OFFICER) KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 383/18

JUDGMENT

The petitioners assail certain proceedings

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶20

am conscious that I am jurisdictionally

¶21

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

¶22

Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and in Authorised Officer, State Bank

¶23

WPC 383/18

¶24

¶25

of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018

¶26

(1) KLT 784] . I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.

¶27

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of 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.

¶29

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

¶30

WPC 383/18

¶31

¶32

and that if the petitioners pay off the total

¶33

dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶34

In view of the fact that the

¶35

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

¶36

into account the financial constraints and

¶37

burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them an opportunity to

¶38

pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶39

The learned counsel for the Bank at

¶40

this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.14,04,224/- as on 24.07.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than twelve instalments commencing from 30.08.2019.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶42

says that the petitioners are agreeable to the

¶43

WPC 383/18

¶44

¶45

above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that

¶46

the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶47

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶48

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amount in twelve equal monthly instalments commencing

¶49

from 30.08.2019 , along with applicable charges and interest. 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 continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.

¶50

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

¶51

that no further requests for extension or

¶52

WPC 383/18

¶53

¶54

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.

¶55

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 383/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 7/12/2017

Komalakumari.S v. the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komalakumari.S v. the Karamana Co-Operative Urban 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.M.Johny Vs State of Kerala

The Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural Vs State of Kerala

K.Sivankutty Vs the State of Kerala

Canara Bank, Vs K.Venugopalan Nair

P v Sindhu Vs the Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co. Op Society Ltd.

Navami Exports Vs the State of Kerala