Dismissed

Raseena Salim v. Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Feb 2020WP(C)/504/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged notices issued under the SARFAESI Act by a bank. After failing to deposit a directed sum, the petitioner sought to quash the notices. The single-judge Bench dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds for interference were made out.

What did the court decide?

Permission to quash notices and stay proceedings was denied; writ petition dismissed.

Raseena Salim Vs Kottayam District… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RASEENA SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SALIM, NELLIMAL PURAYIDOM, KANJIRAPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM, 686507.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KOTTAYAM-686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶11

2 BRANCH MANAGER, KANJIRAPALLY MAIN BRANCH, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANJIRAPALLY, 686 507.

¶12

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETEIS, CIVIL LINES, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI, SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020

-2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to have availed loans

¶21

from Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, Kanjirapally Main Branch, one a housing loan and another a term loan. However, owing to certain problems, the petitioner could not pay off the liability and was served with two notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' for short) dated 27.09.2019 (Exts.P1 & P2). Instead of replying to the aforementioned notices, the petitioner has approached this Court with prayers to quash the aforementioned notices and allow the petitioner to sell the mortgage property and pay the liability due to the Bank and in the meantime, the proceedings be ordered to be kept in abeyance. This Court on 10.01.2020 while issuing notice before admission,

¶22

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020

¶23

-3-

¶24

directed the petitioner in order to show the bona fide to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of one month and till then the coercive steps were ordered to be kept in abeyance. However, the aforementioned amount was not deposited as indicated in the order dated 20.01.2020, and as per the contention of Mr.T.M.Abdul Latheef, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/has been deposited yesterday.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Bank refutes

¶26

the aforementioned contention. On 20.01.2020 this Court passed the following order:

¶27

“The petitioner's counsel submits that the time limit for paying the amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent bank in compliance with this Court's interim order dated 10.01.2020 is upto 10.02.2020. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 (Kottayam District Co-operative Bank) as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent - Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies will get specific instructions on the claim made by the petitioner for securing the

¶28

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020

¶29

-4-

¶30

benefit of moratorium on the basis of the scheme for announcement said to have been made by the State Government.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader will ensure that the statement of the 3^rd respondent is duly filed in the matter as to whether any moratorium scheme is applicable in this case and if so, whether the petitioner gets the benefit of such scheme, due to the flood problems.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the total liability of the petitioner against the aforementioned two loan accounts is Rs.28,00,000/and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively and the overdue amount against the aforementioned two loan accounts is Rs.13,97,611/- and Rs.9,32,744/- respectively as on 21.01.2020.

¶33

Sri.Athul Shaji, learned counsel

¶34

appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that the jurisdiction of the writ court cannot rewrite the terms and conditions of the mortgage or the contract and

¶35

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020

¶36

-5-

¶37

the undertaking given by the loanee for making the payment of instalments along with the agreed interest. Petitioner could have replied the notices and the Bank will enjoin its obligation under Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act, give its reasons and thereafter, if any measures are taken, remedy is to invoke jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶38

No grounds for interference is made out. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as and when cause of action arises.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C).No.504 OF 2020

-6-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF THE SECURITIES ENFORCEMENT ACT TOWARDS LOAN ACCOUNT NO.201 DATED 27.9.2019.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED U/S 13(2) OF THE SARFESI ACT TOWARDS LOAN ACCOUNT NO.202 DATED 27.9.2019.

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION.

¶50

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Raseena Salim v. Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raseena Salim v. Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew M.J. Vs the Authorized Officer

Rajib., Vs the Manager

Hameed Charakku Parambil Vs Union of India

Santo Mathew Vs Union of India

Abdul Hakkim.C Vs State of Kerla

V. Selma Vs the State Tax Officer