Allowed

S.Uthaman v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC25 Feb 2019WP(C)/4891/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged SARFAESI proceedings against them. The High Court acknowledged lack of jurisdiction to examine legality but, noting bank's desire for swift recovery, directed petitioners to pay the outstanding loan amount in 10 monthly installments to regularize the account, with warnings of vacating the order upon default. Subject-wise: Banking-Bad Loan; Debt-Recovery/Loan Default; Install

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay Rs. 4,70,616/- and charges in 10 monthly installments from 26/03/2019 plus regular EMIs to regularize account.

S.Uthaman Vs Authorised Officer — Landlord and Tenant | 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. 4891 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 S.UTHAMAN AGED 56 YEARS SUMESH BHAVAN,S V MARKET.P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM-690573. 2 SUVARNA UTHAMAN, AGED 1 YEARS SUMESH BHAVAN,S V MARKET.P.O, KARANAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAGADEESH SMT.V.RENJU

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

AUTHORISED OFFICER ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL BANK LTD,KOLLAM BRANCH-691001. BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶10

SRI.A.ANTONY-SC

¶11

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

¶12

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 2

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Through this writ petition, the petitioners

¶15

call 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).

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶18

As I proceed to consider the reliefs

¶19

prayed for by the petitioners 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

¶20

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

¶21

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 3

¶22

Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1)

¶23

Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.

¶24

However, obviously being aware of this,

¶25

the learned counsel appearing for the 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 overdue amounts in installments.

¶26

I, therefore, enquired with the learned

¶27

counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on

¶28

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

¶29

maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is

¶30

concerned about recovery at the earliest and that

¶31

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 4

¶32

if the petitioners pay off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶33

In view of the fact that the proceedings

¶34

initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been

¶35

alleged and pleaded by the petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶36

The learned counsel for the Bank at this

¶37

time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.4,70,616/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen

¶38

only), as on 25/02/2019 in not more than 10 instalments commencing from 26/03/2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶40

says that the petitioners are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to

¶41

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 5

¶42

the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶43

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶44

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.4,70,616/-, as on 25/02/2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 26/03/2019. They shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they 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

¶45

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

¶46

I make it clear that the directions in this

¶47

judgment are peremptory in nature and that the

¶48

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 6

¶49

petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of

¶50

this judgment will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the

¶51

petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they 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.

¶52

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

MC/5.3.19

¶57

WP(C).No. 4891 of 2019 7

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF	THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2018
	ISSUED BY PETITIONERS.	THE RESPONDENT TO THE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF	THE NOTICE DATED 14-1-2019
	ISSUED BY TH	E ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO
	THE PETITIONE	RS.

¶61

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶62

NIL

¶63

¶64

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

S.Uthaman v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Uthaman v. Authorised Officer

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

Leena N., Vs Sobhana Kumari

Michael Dcruz Vs the Maintenance Tribunal for the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Bindhu Abraham, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ibrahim, Vs Dr.K.Vasuki

Basheer Vs Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank

Beena Joy Vs the Thrissur District -Co-Operative Bank