A writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's dismissal of a petition seeking relief against bank proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was dismissed. The High Court held the bank was not in laches and the appellant failed to prove jurisdictional errors in the lower court's judgment. The appeal failed.
The writ appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WA NO. 1401 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11840/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THOMAS GEORGE AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE K. JOSEPH, KARUVELIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MRA 80 A, TC 10/948-8, MANNAMOOLA, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.
BY ADV SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2021
SHAJI P.CHALY,J.
Petitioner in the writ petition has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11840/2021 dated 30th September, 2021, whereby the reliefs sought for by the appellant against the proceedings initiated by the 5th respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short, “SARFAESI Act, 2002”, are declined.
has issued Exhibit P1 circular providing guidelines for rescheduling the loan accounts, pursuant to which, an application dated 4.12.2020 was submitted by the appellant and as per Exhibit P2 communication dated 13.1.2021, application submitted by the
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
3
appellant is seem to have been accepted by the bank.
“Therefore, the interest rate (11.50%) in the proposed rescheduled account should be reduced, taking the margin of the bank (7.50%) to a justifiable level. Hence it is humbly requested to reduce the margin of the bank to a reasonable level of 4%, so as to bear the total interest burden of 8% in the rescheduled account subject to change in Repo rate. In addition to the above, no other charge like processing fee, documentation fee etc. shall be taken for rescheduling the loan account. All other terms and conditions in the proposed agreement are acceptable to us.”
conveying that the bank has already obtained sanction for 11.50% and only after rescheduling the limit, the bank can take up for further concessions. It was also stated in the email that as per the bank's rule, the bank is bound to collect the
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
4
processing fee, documentation fee, stamp charges and valuation fee. However, it was also stated thereunder that the bank would try for reversal of processing fee once the account is rescheduled and standardised.
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
5
of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The said email reads thus:
“
From
Thomas George & Annamma Thomas Karuvelil Puthenpurayil
MRA 80A, TC, 10/948(8),Mannammoola, Peroorkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 5
Mob:9447021414
To
The Assistant Vice President and Branch Head/Chief Manager/Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Nanthancode Branch,
Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Madam/Sir,
Sub: Rescheduling of our property power loan Account No 13177600004460 with your Branch, Nanthancode – reg:
Ref: 1) our mail dated 15/01/2021 with reference to your intimation for rescheduling our property power loan account with you .
Based on your assurances in the reply mail referred above we are ready to execute the documents for rescheduling the said loan account
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
6
subject to the following conditions.
We are agreeable, please inform the date for execution of documents for rescheduling the account.
Thiruvanathapuram Yours faithfully, 27-01-2021 Sd/-
Thomas George & Annamma
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
7
appellant, bank did not take any action to regularise the account.
judgment of the learned Single Judge, submitted that as per clauses 8, 9 and 10 of Exhibit P1 guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the rescheduling had to
be done within 90 days from the date of invocation and becomes complete only when all related documents are executed.
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
8
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
9
W.A.No.1401 of 2021
10
issued by the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the appellant. Assimilating the factual and legal situations, we have no reason to think that the learned Single
Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, we do not find any
jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in an intra
court appeal filed under section 5 of the High Court Act, 1958.
Needless to say writ appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv
JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ appeal intersecting a loan dispute under SBARAESI Act.
Whether the bank was in laches or delay in invoking the RBI guidelines for rescheduling loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Whether the appellant's insistence on interest rate reduction and waiver of charges mandated judicial interference under the SARFAESI Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THOMAS GEORGE
UNION OF INDIA
GOVERNOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR KERALA, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
FEDERAL BANK LTD.
ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT & BRANCH HEAD, FEDERAL BANK LTD.
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
