Dismissed

Shibu M., v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/7041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank sale notice. The court held there were no extraordinary circumstances to interfere with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, noting the Supreme Court's stance on non-interference, though advising the petitioner to approach the bank directly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the Bank.

Shibu M., Vs Authorised Officer — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7041 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHIBU M.,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN, MALEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THIRUVANKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682305.

¶7

BY ADV DENNIS VARGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.51,
HEAD OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶10

BY ADV DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(C)No.7041/2022

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

Dated this the 5^th day of June,2023

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext P1 sale notice issued by the respondent – Bank and to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to apply and avail the One Time Settlement(OTS) facility.

¶17

The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed a loan from the respondent – Bank – by creating an equitable mortgage. The petitioner is suffering from coronary artery disease. Therefore, he could not pay the instalments on time. Now, the Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and is proceeding against the secured asset. The petitioner is prepared to avail the OTS scheme. Hence, the writ petition.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.7041/2022

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

Heard; Sri. Dennis Varghese, the learned

¶21

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

¶22

Sri. Devaprasanth.P.J, on instructions, submitted that Ext P1 was the first sale notice. There was no bidders in the said sale. Subsequently, another sale notice was issued and the Bank has purchased the secured asset on 20.08.2022. Now, the secured asset is a non-banking asset of the respondent. Therefore, there is no question of permitting the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in instalments. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to approach the Bank with concrete proposal, which would be considered by the respondent.

¶23

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 LiveLaw

¶24

W.P.(C)No.7041/2022

¶25

-:4:-

¶26

(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 extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 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 taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I do not find any extra ordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it will be up to the petitioner to approach the respondent – Bank and the same will be considered by the respondent, in accordance with law.

¶28

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

¶29

W.P.(C)No.7041/2022

¶30

-:5:-

¶31

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/05.06.23

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

W.P.(C)No.7041/2022

¶38

-:6:-

¶39

APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
24.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE BANK
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED TOTHE
PETITIONERFROMLAKESHOREHOSPITAL
ERNAKULAM, DATED 25.5.2016.

¶40

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Shibu M., v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu M., v. Authorised 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

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

Chennam Kulangara Sulaiman Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Daniel Jayapaul, Vs State of Kerala

Jose M Panikkulam Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Susamma Varghese, Vs State Bank of India

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