Partly allowed

Sivan.P.v v. the Canara Bank

Kerala HC4 Jan 2021WP(C)/27897/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging bank recovery action under the SARFAESI Act. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.30,000 immediately and the remaining balance in eight monthly instalments, deferring the bank's recovery action pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.30,000 immediately and balance in 8 monthly instalments; bank's recovery action deferred pending payment.

Sivan.P.v Vs the Canara Bank — 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

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVAN.P.V AGED 50 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 581.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CANARA BANK ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF MANAGER. ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572.

¶12

SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶17

impugning the steps taken by the 1^st respondent – Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation

¶18

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

¶19

However it is now well established, through the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶20

Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [2010 (8) SCC 110] and in Authorised Officer,

¶21

State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], that the jurisdiction

¶22

of this Court in dealing with matters arising under the SARFAESI Act is severely restricted and even proscribed.

¶23

Discerning my mind as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Anoop V.Nair, submitted that his client has been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition, only because he wants to pay off the entire liability to the Bank in a few

¶24

instalments.

¶25

WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020 3

¶26

I, therefore, asked the learned

¶27

Standing Counsel for the bank, Shri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, as to if they are willing to accede to the petitioner's request, to which he submitted that if the petitioner remits at least 15% of the outstanding amount by 20/01/2021 and the rest in not more than 8 instalments, the Bank is willing to give him the said latitude.

¶28

Shri.Anoop V.Nair, in response, acceded to the afore suggestion and prayed that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.

¶29

In the afore circumstances, taking note of the submissions of Shri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar - that the total outstanding from the petitioner, as on 18/12/2020, is Rs.2,67,000/-, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- on or before 20/01/2021 and the balance, along with all applicable charges and interest, in 8 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15/2/2020.

¶30

I make it clear that the directions afore

¶31

are peremptory in nature and that he shall pay

¶32

WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020 4

¶33

off the amounts as ordered above without fail.

¶34

Needless to say, as long as the petitioner continues to make payment in terms of the afore directions, the action now pursued by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act will stand deferred; however leaving them full liberty to continue with the same, if any instalment as afore ordered is defaulted by him.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

MC/4.1.2021

¶39

WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020 5

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 02.12.2020 FOR TAKING SYMBOLIC POSSESSION OF ABOVE PROPERTY. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Sivan.P.v v. the Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivan.P.v v. the Canara Bank

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

Girija P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Simi Ambily S. Vs the Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.

Varijakshan C.T.R Vs Kerala Water Authority

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Suresh Kumar K.R. Vs the Authorized Officer

M.a.Titto Vs State of Kerala