Dismissed

Yunus Kutty, v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC15 Jun 2023WP(C)/2232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case concerns a writ petition seeking to quash a bank's rejection of a One Time Settlement proposal under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents limiting judicial interference in settllement scheme decisions, the High Court dismissed the petition as no extraordinary circumstances existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to work out statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Yunus Kutty, Vs the Authorized Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

YUNUS KUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS S/O SULAIMANKUNJI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SAGAR CASHEW INDUSTRIES, VILAKKUDI, KUNNIKKODU, KOLLAM, R/AT. PERUMBUZHA PURAYIDAM, CHALAKKODU, PPM. P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691305

¶9

BY ADVS. BINU GEORGE HEMALATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, IOB BUILDINGS, MG ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH, QMC-2419, MUSALIAR BUILDINGS, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001 BY ADVS. SUNIL SHANKER VIDYA GANGADHARAN SANDHRA.S

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The writ petition is filed to quash the order passed on Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner had availed financial assistance from the 2^nd respondent bank by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he could not pay the installments in time. The bank has proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'SARFAESI Act'). By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed the bank to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner for a One time Settlement Scheme. Despite the direction, the respondents have rejected the proposal. The action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶18

Heard; Sri. Binu George, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Sankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

¶20

WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶21

Sri.Sunil Sankar, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court the respondents have considered Ext.P5 representation and have rejected the same as it is not viable. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶22

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics (P) Ltd. (AIR 2022 SC 5517), has categorically held that it is not for the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to enlarge the time period or decide on the decisions of the Bank taken under the One Time Settlement Scheme.

¶23

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements, has declared the law that, High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶24

WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the law on the point, and further the fact that the bank has, already rejected Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies in accordance with law.

¶28

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

¶29

Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶30

rkc/15.06.23

¶31

WP(C) NO. 2232 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2232/2023

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF PO 07.02.2020	SSESSION NOTICE DATED
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF 19.03.2020 UNDER R SECURITY INTEREST 2002.	SALE NOTICE DATED ULE 8(6) AND 9(1) OF (ENFORCEMENT) RULES
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF 20.08.2020	REPRESENTATION DATED
ExhibitP3(a)	A TRUE COPY OF 11.08.2021	REPRESENTATION DATED
ExhibitP3(b)	A TRUE COPY OF 10.02.2022	REPRESENTATION DATED
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF JUD IN WP(C) NO. 6804/2	GMENT DATED 15.11.2022 022
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF 28.11.2022	REPRESENTATION DATED
ExhibitP6	A TRUE COPY OF LE SENT BY THE 2ND RES	TTER DATED 13.12.2022 PONDENT
ExhibitP7	A TRUE COPY OF 21.12.2022.	REPRESENTATION DATED
ExhibitP8	A TRUE COPY OF 30.12.2022.	COMMUNICATION DATED

Yunus Kutty, v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yunus Kutty, v. the Authorized Officer

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

Sindhu Antony Vs Corporation of Kochi

Shaji K. R., Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. Branch at Kaliyar

Bhagya Suresh, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd Vs S.Pradeep Kumar

Parambath Nissar, Vs the Indian Bank

Vishnu v.S., Vs Dhanalakshmi Bank