Allowed

Ramadasan.U.P., v. the Manager

Kerala HC22 Mar 2019WP(C)/5616/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court exercised judicial discretion in a SARFAESI Act writ petition to allow the petitioners to settle an overdue loan amount in installments, granting leniency for case closure subject to strict payment compliance.

What did the court decide?

Pending petitioners shall pay a part of Rs.₹1,92,367 on or before 30/03/2019 and balance in seven equal monthly instalments commencing from 06/05/2019 to regularize the account.

Ramadasan.U.P., Vs the Manager — 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAMADASAN.U.P., AGED 71 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, POVANGOTTU HOUSE, KOTTOOLI.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673016.

¶8

2 SHILJITH.U.P. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMADASAN, POVANGOTTU HOUSE, KOTTOOLI.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673016.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.AMRUTHA RAJ SMT.REKHA ARAVIND SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.503, CHALAPPURAM.P.O., KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002.

¶12

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/SENIOR MANAGER KOZHIKODE DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673002.

¶13

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Through this writ petition, the

¶18

petitioners call into question certain

¶19

proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the

¶20

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

¶21

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for

¶23

the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶24

As I proceed to consider the reliefs

¶25

prayed for by the petitioners herein, I am

¶26

conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration

¶27

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

¶28

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed

¶29

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 3

¶30

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.

¶31

However, obviously being aware of this,

¶32

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.

¶33

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 and that if the petitioners pay off the dues

¶34

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 4

¶35

quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶36

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

¶37

into account the financial constraints and

¶38

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

¶39

pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶40

The learned counsel for the Bank at

¶41

this time submits that the petitioners can be

¶42

allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.1,92,367/-, as on 11/03/2019, provided they pays Rs.20,000/- on or before 30/03/2019 and the

¶43

balance in 7 equal monthly instalments

¶44

commencing from 06/05/2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶46

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

¶47

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 5

¶48

permission to the petitioners to pay off the

¶49

amount in the manner as afore.

¶50

In such circumstances, I direct the

¶51

petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.1,92,367/-, as on

¶52

11/03/2019, by first paying Rs.20,000/- on or before 30/03/2019 and the balance amount, along

¶53

with all applicable charges and interest, in 7 equal monthly instalments commencing from 06/05/2019. They shall also, in addition to

¶54

this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such

¶55

payment is made by the petitioners, their loan

¶56

account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per

¶57

the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes

¶58

without saying that if there is any default in

¶59

making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand

¶60

vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to

¶61

recover the entire liability from the

¶62

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

¶63

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 6

¶64

I make it clear that the directions in

¶65

this 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 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.

¶66

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

MC/22.3.19

¶71

WP(C).No. 5616 of 2019 7

¶72

APPENDIX

¶73

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 19/01/2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTERFOIL DATED 24/01/2019 FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,20,000/TOWARDS THE LOAN IN THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶75

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶76

MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Ramadasan.U.P., v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadasan.U.P., v. the Manager

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

Sivanandan.N Vs Poovattoor East Service Co-Operative Bank Limited

N.P.Poulose Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies General

Mini Kumari, Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Thekkumbhagom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Suresh Kumar v.K., Vs the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Viswanatha Mallan Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies