Partly allowed

Anoop Jose v. Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.556

Kerala HC25 Mar 2019WP(C)/6356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings, the Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner to pay the outstanding bank dues in 15 installments. The court directed permission to pay with a warning that any default would vacate the benefit and bar further challenges.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay Rs. 19,16,459/- (as on 01-03-2019) plus charges and interest in 15 equal monthly installments commencing from 25-04-2019.

Anoop Jose Vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd… — 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

MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANOOP JOSE AGED 37 YEARS S/O. LATE JOSE, MACKOLI HOUSE, AVOLI P.O., VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 670

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.556 KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., KERALA, PIN - 686 661, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.556, KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., KERALA, PIN - 686 661

¶12

3 JAMES MATHEW AGED 55 YEARS S/O. M.C. MATHEW, MAKKOLI HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 670

¶13

4 ADDL R4 VILLAGE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA

¶14

ADDL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/3/2019 IN WPC 6356/19

¶15

SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL-SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner assails 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

¶22

When I deal with this writ petition, 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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019

¶26

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 total outstanding amounts in installments.

¶27

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 total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.

¶28

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 entire amounts demanded by the Bank.

¶29

The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits

¶30

that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding,

¶31

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019 4

¶32

which is stated to be Rs . 19,16,459/- as on 01-03-2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 15 instalments commencing from 25-04-2019.

¶33

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.

¶34

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off

¶35

the aforementioned amount in 15 equal monthly instalments commencing from 25-04-2019, along with applicable charges and interest. 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.

¶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 will be

¶37

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019 5

¶38

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, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court.

¶39

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

SVP

¶44

WP(C).No. 6356 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶50

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

Anoop Jose v. Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.556

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Jose v. Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.556

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

Ramadasan.U.P., Vs the Manager

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.

Chokkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Mon Joseph Vs Dr.Venu.v.Ias

Sreekumar Vs the Authorised Officer (Chief Manager)