Dismissed

Sajid Ahamed, S/o.Koyakunju v. Union Bank of India Represented by Its Manager

Kerala HC4 Nov 2022WA/1611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Single Judge's order granting the petitioner five months to repay outstanding loan dues to a bank, keeping coercive proceedings in abeyance. The High Court bench found no illegality. In the appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that sufficient time was granted and no interference was required.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no interference with the Single Judge's order granting repayment time.

Sajid Ahamed, S/o.Koyakunju Vs Union Bank of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

W.A.NO.1611 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 33000/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27.10.2022

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶9

SAJID AHAMED, S/O.KOYAKUNJU AGED 50 YEARS TC 30/1297, MINAH, NALUMUKKU, PETTA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 035

¶10

BY ADVS.B.MOHANLAL BIJITH S.KHAN MANSOOR ALI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶12

1 UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, NEW JYOTHI TOWER, TC 25/1506(1) SS KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶13

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NEW JYOTHI TOWER, TC 25/1506(1), SS KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶14

SHRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI SHRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4^th day of November 2022

¶20

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶21

This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27.10.2022 in W.P.(C)No.33000/2022.

¶22

Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Appellant is the owner of 4.67 ares of property comprised in survey number 154/1 of Vanjiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and his wife Vaseena.A is the owner of 1.21 ares of property comprised in survey number 1074/1 of Petta Village in Thiruvananthapuram Thaluk. Appellant availed a cash credit facility and a term loan from the first respondent – Union Bank of India and committed default in repayment of liabilities resulting in proceedings being initiated against the appellant under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act).

¶23

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

3. Writ petition was filed seeking for the following

¶26

reliefs:

¶27

“i. To call for the records leading to Ext. P1 & P2 and the proceedings of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 from the Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order of direction quashing all proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶28

ii. To declare that the proceedings of the Respondent to take possession of the Secured Assets specified in Exts.P1 & P2 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 and the further proceedings for sale of the secured assets under the Rules is nonest in law and is issued strictly in violation of the Provision of the Securitization Act and Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws (Amendment) Act 2004 and the Reserve Bank guidelines for Non performing Asset.

¶29

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondent to regularize the loan specified in Exts. P1 & P2 and giving credit of the amount remitted by the Petitioner towards loan and permit the Petitioner to remit the loan in 20 equal monthly installments starting from November 2022 and till then the SARFAESI Proceedings may be kept in abeyance.

¶30

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondent not to proceed the Petitioner’s Secured Assets specified in Exts.P1 & P2 under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and Rules or Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws (Amendment) Act.”

¶31

After considering the rival contentions, learned

¶32

Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide judgment

¶33

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

¶34

:: 4 ::

¶35

dated 27^th October 2022 in W.P.(C)No.33000/2022. Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:

¶36

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank says that after giving credit to the amount of Rs.31,00,000/-, the amount due from the petitioner is Rs.92,96,590/-(Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only). It is submitted that there are bidders for one of the item of properties scheduled to be sold tomorrow and if the sale fructifies the bank will be able to recover the entire amount by the sale of that one item of property. It is submitted that considering the above, petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence and if the petitioner wishes to wipe out the liability, he must do so within a period of two months from today.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be given some further accommodation considering the fact that the petitioner has demonstrated his bona fides by depositing a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- on 26.10.2022.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given time till 31.03.2023 to clear the entire liability by paying the outstanding amount Rs.92,96,590/- in respect of both the loans mentioned above in five (05) equal monthly installments.

¶39

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding amount of Rs.92,96,590/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) along with any accrued interest and bank charges from the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The outstanding amount of Rs.92,96,590/(Rupees Ninety Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) in respect of both the loans mentioned above together with any accrued interest/cost shall be repaid in five equated monthly installments;

¶41

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

¶42

:: 5 ::

¶43

(ii) The first installment shall be paid on or before 07-11-2022. The subsequent installments shall be paid on or before the 7th day of the succeeding months;

¶44

(iii) In the event of default of any one installment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law;

¶45

(iv) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted to the petitioner.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶48

Mr.B.Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the

¶49

appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the evidence and law in its true perspective passed the impugned Judgment deviating from the actual facts of the case. It is also submitted that the writ court without properly exercising its jurisdiction passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the writ court is liable to be set aside and the appellant may be given at least 20 installments to wipe off the entire loan liability to the respondents.

¶50

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

¶51

:: 6 ::

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶53

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are also of the view that sufficient time has been given to the writ petitioner/appellant to clear off the liability due to the respondent/bank. Moreover, it is specifically stated in the impugned judgment itself that no further extension of time would be granted to the writ petitioner/appellant. Hence, no interference of this court is required in the matter. Appeal fails. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶54

sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

jes

WA NO. 1611 OF 2022

:: 7 ::

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶61

Annexure-A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN O.A NO.553/2022 ISSUED FROM THE DRT-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 07.10.2022 TO THE APPELLANT. Annexure-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 18.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶62

Annexure-A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AGAINST ANNEXURE-A2 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT BY E-MAIL DATED 03.08.2022. Annexure-A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE CITY LINK TRAVEL CORPORATION MANAGED BY THE APPELLANT.

¶63

// TRUE COPY //

¶64

P.S.TO JUDGE

Sajid Ahamed, S/o.Koyakunju v. Union Bank of India Represented by Its Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ahamed, S/o.Koyakunju v. Union Bank of India Represented by Its Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmanilayam Charitable Society Vs Union of India

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandrika

Kandyan Aneesh, Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Shihab, Vs P.K.Moosa

Shihab, Vs Ravichandran.P

M.K.Thomas Vs State of Kerala