Dismissed

Rajesh P.S., v. Csb Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC24 Jul 2023WP(C)/2726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought intervention under Article 226 to allow installment payments for an agricultural loan classified as NPA and facing SARFAESI proceedings. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents limiting writ jurisdiction, found no extraordinary circumstances, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Rajesh P.S., Vs Csb Bank Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2726 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAJESH P.S., AGED 49 YEARS S/O SUNDARAN, PURAMADATHOTTAM, NEAR LIONS CLUB, MUVATUPUZHA, MARADY PART, MUVATUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686661

¶8

BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 CSB BANK LTD. , REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, CHITTOOR ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682016

¶11

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, CSB BANK LTD., ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, CHITTOOR ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM -682016., PIN - 682016 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, CSB BANK LTD., MUVATUPUZHA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT686661., PIN – 686661 SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 2726 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in installments and close the loan account.

¶17

The petitioner's case is that he had availed financial assistance from the 3^rd respondent-Bank for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to conduct agricultural operations by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the installments on time. The bank has classified the loan account as a Non Performing Asset. The bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'SARFAESI Act') and is threatening to take physical possession of the secured asset. The petitioner is willing to pay off the outstanding amount in installments and close the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2726 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

Heard; Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, on instructions, submitted that the outstanding amount as on today is Rs.47,00,000/-. The petitioner is not conducting any agricultural operations in the property. The loan account has been classified as NPA. The respondents are not willing to extend any installment facility to the petitioner. The petitioner may be relegated to exhaust his statutory remedies.

¶22

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 categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings under Article 226

¶23

WP(C) NO. 2726 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondents are not willing to extent any installment facility to the petitioner, I do not find any circumstances warranting exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it is upto the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies in accordance with law.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶29

rkc/24.07.23

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2726 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2726/2023

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF SECTION 13(2) NOTICE OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT DATED 31.10.2022 ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 NOTICE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL ON 28.12.2022 ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2023 ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.01.2023 Exhibit5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13.01.2023

Rajesh P.S., v. Csb Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh P.S., v. Csb Bank Ltd.

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

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the General Manager

C.v.James Vs Union of India

M/S Sherbrooke Aluminium Products, Vs the State of Kerala

Shine P Jacob Vs the Authorised Officer/Chief Manger

Subaida, Vs the Authorized Officer, Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sunilkumar.K.G., Vs the Authorised Officer