Allowed

Nikil Das.a, v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC26 Feb 2019WP(C)/4247/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a petitioner in SARFAESI proceedings to pay outstanding dues in eight monthly installments, directing that default would vacate the order and permit the bank to continue recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs 1,30,557/- along with charges and interest in eight equal monthly installments commencing from 28.03.2019.

Nikil Das.a, Vs the Authorised Officer — 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 ,THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NIKIL DAS.A, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MOHANDAS, NISHA NIVAS, CHAMBAYIL, ARAKINR P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 028.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYEDAM)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO. 1538, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, KERALA 673 002.

¶11

BY ADVS. SMT.RESMI NANDANAN

¶12

SC - SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner assails 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶19

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) 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 petitioner on its merits.

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019

¶22

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 him to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.

¶23

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 total 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 petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs . 1,30,557/- as on 21.02.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than eight instalments commencing from 28.03.2019.

¶29

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.

¶30

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned amount in eight equal monthly instalments commencing from 28.03.2019, 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 petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019

¶33

the stage it is on this date.

¶34

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, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and he 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.

¶35

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 4247 of 2019