Disposed

K.N.Nafeesa v. the Authorized Officer/Manager

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021WP(C)/15/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed an elderly widow to pay overdue loan amount within 15 days to enable a One Time Settlement proposal. Consequently, the Bank was restrained from allowing physical inspection of the ancestral property until payment, preventing immediate auction while considering settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit Rs. 38,20,000/- within 15 days to seek One Time Settlement; Bank directed to restrict physical inspection of property.

K.N.Nafeesa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N.NAFEESA AGED 80 YEARS W/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, RATNAPURI, ERG ROAD, COCHIN-682 014.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, AT HDFC HOUSE, P.O. BOX 1700, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 015.

¶11

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, 19, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 001.

¶12

3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER M/S. MAXTEX NET PVT.LTD., NO.37, FIRST FLOOR, CHAMIERS TOWER, CHAMIERS ROAD, THEYNAMPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 028.

¶13

4 K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR AGED 58 YEARS

¶14

S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, RANGOON, 37/2127A, OPP. MARVEL MANSION, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017.

¶15

5 K.N.MARZOOK AGED 63 YEARS S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, 191/8, FLORA, 35 DIVISION, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017.

¶16

6 K.N.FAJAR AGED 51 YEARS S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-682 018.

¶17

7 V.M.JESNA AGED 51 YEARS W/O. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR, RANGOON, 37/2127A, OPP. MARVEL MANSION, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017.

¶18

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 2

¶19

8 REHNA A.M. AGED 60 YEARS W/O. K.N.MARZOOK, 191/8, FLORA, 35 DIVISION, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017.

¶20

9 NILOOFER FAJAR AGED 45 YEARS W/O. K.N.FAJAR, ABAD MARINE PLAZA,MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-682 014.

¶21

10 M/S.METRO PLUS BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

¶22

11 FORMOST M.G.ROAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

¶23

12 M/S.COLOMBO UMBRELLAS BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

¶24

R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEJITH R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SMT.TELMA RAJU R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB R5, R10, R12 BY ADV. CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL R8 BY ADV. CHRIISTNA ANNA PAUL R6 AND R9 – BY ADV. ADITHYAN EDAPPALLY

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SRI. MATHEW KUZHALNADAN - SC

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 3

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

An octogenarian widow, who is the mother of

¶31

respondents 4 to 6, who are all business men in

¶32

Kerala have approached this Court seeking

¶33

indulgence from being thrown out of her

¶34

ancest ral home, through the steps initiated by the Standard Chartered Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and

¶35

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶36

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) .

¶37

The petitioner impugns Exts.P1 and P2

¶38

notice and publication for sale respectively

¶39

issued by the Bank and seeks that she be given some time to pay off the overdues in the loan

¶40

account, which had been availed of by respondents 4 to 12. She says that if this benefit is not granted to her, she will have no place to reside in the winter of her life and therefore, prays that this Court allow her the afore requested lenitude.

¶41

In response to the submissions of the

¶42

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 4

¶43

petitioner, as made by her learned counsel Shri.Millu Dandapani, the learned Standing

¶44

Counsel for the Standard Chartered Bank –

¶45

Shri.Mathew Kuzhalnaden, submitted that the

¶46

total outstanding in the loan account, as of

¶47

today, is Rs.80,22,015/- out of which Rs.68,68,952/- is the Principal . He added to this by saying that the overdues in the loan account is Rs.38,19,324/- and that respondents

¶48

4 to 12 are all very successful business

¶49

persons/entitles who are capable and having the

¶50

means to pay off the outstanding itself in lumpsum. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed; but submitted - on being specifically asked by this Court whether any

¶51

indulgence can be shown to the petitioner on account of her age and status - that if she

¶52

pays at least the overdue amount of Rs.38,19,324/- and submits an application for One Time Settlement, the Bank can consider the

¶53

same and defer the sale of the property for a short period of time.

¶54

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 5

¶55

4. Shri.Thomas John Ambooken, learned

¶56

counsel appearing for respondents 4,7 and 11; Shri.Anil D. Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5,8,10 and 12 and Shri.Adithyan Edappally, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 9, submitted that their clients are now facing extreme financial crisis on account of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions, and their respective businesses have been badly hit on account of the financial crisis faced by the country as a whole. They, however, submitted that they are willing to

¶57

support the petitioner in finding a solution to the imbroglio, particularly because the

¶58

property in question is their ancestral house,

¶59

to which all of them attach a lot of

¶60

sentimental value. They, therefore, prayed that this Court may allow the petitioner to pay off

¶61

the overdues in at least 15 days time.

¶62

When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that the jurisdiction of this Court, while dealing with a challenge to the

¶63

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 6

¶64

steps taken by a Bank or Financial Institution

¶65

under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act i s severely restricted or even proscribed on

¶66

account of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶67

Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [2010 (8) SCC 110] and in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018

¶68

(1) KLT 784], Obviously, therefore, this Court

¶69

can grant relief to the petitioner only to the

¶70

extent to which it is acceded to by the

¶71

respondent - Bank.

¶72

That said, the afore narration makes it clear that the Bank requires the petitioner to remit the overdue amount of Rs.38,19,324/- at

¶73

the earliest, so that they can then consider an One Time Settlement proposal to be offered by her.

¶74

especially taking note of the advanced stage of

¶75

the petitioner, that this Court will be

¶76

justified in granting her at least that relief to her.

¶77

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 7

¶78

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.38,20,000/-, on or before 15/01/2021 into

¶79

the loan account in question; and if this is done she will be at liberty to make a proposal for One Time Settlement simultaneously, which

¶80

will then be considered by the competent Authority of the Bank, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her as well as the borrowers and guarantors - either physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, without further delay thereafter.

¶81

In the meanwhile, until 15/01/2021, the respondent - Bank will be at liberty to accept

¶82

the bids pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, but they shall not allow physical inspection of the secured asset in question, since the petitioner is residing there.

¶83

Needless to say, if the afore amounts are not paid by 15/01/2021, the Bank can permit inspection of the property on 16^th , 17^th and 18^th

¶84

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 8

¶85

January, 2021 and the sale can also go on on

¶86

the 19^th January, 2021 as scheduled.

¶87

It goes without saying that if the petitioner pays the amounts in terms of the afore directions, the Bank will defer the sale scheduled on 19/01/2021 and will thereafter conduct only after it considers the One Time settlement offer to be made by the petitioner and after the resultant order is communicated to her.

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶90

JUDGE

¶91

MC/11.1.2021

¶92

WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 9

¶93

APPENDIX

¶94

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶95

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT U/S. 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF E- AUCTION DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS THROUGH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶96

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶97

NIL

¶98

¶99

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

K.N.Nafeesa v. the Authorized Officer/Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Nafeesa v. the Authorized Officer/Manager

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

The Mes International School Vs State Bank of India

Bobina Jacob Vs the Labour Commissioner

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Jijo Alias Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Jisha Philip Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Josemon Vs the Authorized Officer