Dismissed

Jose M Panikkulam v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/513/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a loan defaulter seeking permission to repay dues via instalments. Citing Supreme Court precedent prohibiting interference with SARFAESI proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court dismissed the petition but allowed the petitioner to approach the bank directly to propose a lump sum payment for asset release.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner directed to approach the bank for proposal submission.

Jose M Panikkulam Vs Irinjalakuda Town… — 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 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 513 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSE M PANIKKULAM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PANIKKULAM HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA EAST., PIN – 680682

¶8

BY ADVS.S.MUMTAZ ALISHA ASLAM AJITH M. JIJI AMINA RUBY FAIZAL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER , TANA SOUTH, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR., PIN - 680121

¶11

SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 513 OF 2023

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 5^th day of June 2023

¶17

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amounts in a loan account in equated monthly instalments.

¶18

The petitioner’s case is that he had availed financial assistance from the respondent by creating an equitable mortgage. But, due to reasons beyond his control, he could not repay the instalments on time. The bank has now proceeded against secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.5226/2021 before this court, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P2 judgment. Now, the petitioner is prepared to pay off the overdue amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 513 OF 2023

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

Heard; Sri.Mumtaz Shumsuddin, learned counsel for

¶22

the petitioner and Sri.Devaprasanth.P.J., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

Sri.Devaprasanth.P.J., on instructions, submitted that as the secured asset is a non-banking asset of the respondent bank and this court by Ext.P2 judgment had already dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, the respondent is no longer willing to extend any instalment facility to the petitioner. But, it will be upto the petitioner to approach the bank and submit a proposal to pay off the loan amount in a lump sum and get the secured asset released. The said submission is recorded.

¶24

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 rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extraordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶25

WP(C) NO. 513 OF 2023

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

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

¶28

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioner to approach the respondent and submit a proposal as stated above.

¶29

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the respondent bank and submit a proposal.

¶30

sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE

¶31

jes

¶32

WP(C) NO. 513 OF 2023

¶33

:: 5 ::

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 513/2023

¶35

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶36

Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 27/1/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶37

Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W P (C) 5226/2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 4/1/2022

¶38

Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DATED 30/12/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RERSPONDENT

¶39

// True copy //

¶40

P.S. to Judge

Jose M Panikkulam v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose M Panikkulam v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safeer M. B., Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Chennam Kulangara Sulaiman Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Daniel Jayapaul, Vs State of Kerala

Shibu M., Vs Authorised Officer

Susamma Varghese, Vs State Bank of India

Jinesh E J Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd., No. 55