Partly allowed

Roy Mathew Poonattu v. the Federal Bank Limited

Kerala HC20 Mar 2019WP(C)/6261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings, the High Court barred inquiry into legality but, recognizing recovery interests and financial hardship, permitted the petitioner to regularize his loan account by paying the overdue amount plus interest in eight instalments with regular EMIs; default would void this benefit.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to pay the overdue amount of Rs.1,04,341/- along with interest and charges in eight equal monthly instalments from 16.04.2019, plus regular EMIs, on regularization of the loan

Roy Mathew Poonattu Vs the Federal Bank Limited — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ROY MATHEW POONATTU AGED 47 YEARS S/O. MATHEW JOSEPH, POONATTU, POONATTU HOUSE, PARATHANAM P.O, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM-685514, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301, ROYAL PARK 1, KHARIWAD, NANI, DAMAN PIN-396210.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED LCRD KOTTAYAM DIVISION, THEKKUMKAL BUILDING, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686001, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶11

2 THE MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, MUNDAKAYAM BRANCH, CSI BUILDING, PB NO.17, MUNDAKAYAM 686513.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

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).

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019 3

¶20

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 overdue amounts in installments.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019 4

¶24

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.1,04,341/as on today in not more than eight instalments commencing from 16.04.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.

¶25

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.

¶26

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.1,04,341/- as on today, along with applicable charges and interest, in eight equal monthly instalments commencing from 16.04.2019. 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

¶27

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019 5

¶28

from the stage it is on this date.

¶29

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 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.

¶30

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No. 6261 of 2019 6

¶36