Allowed

Basheer v. Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC25 Feb 2019WP(C)/4881/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings but barred a merit inquiry due to precedent. Instead, it permitted the petitioner to regularize his loan by paying a lump sum followed by nine installments, warning that default would vacate this benefit and restore the bank's recovery actions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay Rs.1 lakh by 26.03.2019 and the balance of overdue amounts in 9 installments commencing from 15.05.2019 to regularize the account.

Basheer Vs Kozhikode District 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

MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BASHEER AGED 54 YEARS S/O. POKKER, PUTHUKKUDI, UNNIKKULAM PO, CALICUT. PIN-673 574.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SRI.A.KOMU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BALUSSERY BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673612 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER KOZHIKODE DIST CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MAIN OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 002.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

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

¶21

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that

¶22

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶23

¶24

notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as

¶25

aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 opportunity to pay off the overdue 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 overdue amount

¶29

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶30

¶31

of Rs.6,05,315/- as on 19.02.2019, provided he pays Rs.1 lakh on or before 26.03.2019 and the balance of the overdue amounts in 9 installments commencing from 15.05.2019.

¶32

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.

¶33

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay Rs.1 lakh on or before 26.03.2019 and the balance of the afore overdue amounts in 9 installments commencing from 15.05.2019, along with applicable charges and interest . He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he 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.

¶34

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶35

¶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, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted 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 and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶37

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No. 4881 of 2019

¶43