Disposed

Manikkan v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019WP(C)/5637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Despite noting its lack of jurisdiction to examine the merits, the court allowed petitioners an opportunity to regularize their loan by paying the overdue amount in 10 equal monthly installments commencing 15-04-2019, with strict compliance warned.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay overdue amount of Rs. 2,21,745 with interest in 10 equal monthly installments commencing 15-04-2019 and regular EMIs.

Manikkan 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 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MANIKKAN

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS S/O PANGELAN, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KANNARA.P.O, PIN-680652

¶9

2 THANKA

¶10

W/O MANIKKAN, AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KANNARA.P.O, PIN-680652

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THRISSUR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDHIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR-680022

¶14

2 THE MANAGER, THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, PATTIKKAD BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680022

¶15

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Through this writ petition, the petitioners 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).

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶22

As I proceed to consider the reliefs 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 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 petitioners on its merits.

¶23

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019 3

¶24

However, obviously being aware of this, the learned

¶25

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 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 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 petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them an opportunity to pay

¶28

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019

¶29

¶30

off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶31

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits

¶32

that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs. 2,21,745/- as on 28-02-2019 in not more than 10 instalments commencing from 15-04-2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

¶34

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs. 2,21,745/- as on 28-02-2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15-04-2019 . 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

¶35

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019 5

¶36

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.

¶37

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 that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted 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.

¶38

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

SVP

¶43

WP(C).No. 5637 of 2019

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1

¶48

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 13.11.2018

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002

¶50

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

Manikkan v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikkan v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasidharan Vs the State of Kerala

K.Baburajan, Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Service Examination Board

Baiju.P., Vs Authorized Officer

Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs the State of Kerala

Jamaludeen Vs Special Sale Officer

M.K.Ajithkumar Vs the Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.