Writ petitioner sought direction to allow repayment of overdue bank dues in installments. Petitioner failed to comply with earlier interim order directing partial payment. Court referred recent Supreme Court pronouncements limiting writ interference in SARFAESI proceedings and rejected application for discretionary relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7157 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
JOSEMON P.R
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O RAPHEL PADAMADEN HOUSE, KARMEL NAGAR, ELTHURUTH
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680611
BY ADV M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICERTHE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SAHAKARANA
SATABDHI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHU PADAM ,THRISSUR
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680022
2THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SAHAKARANA
SATABDHI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHU PADAM ,THRISSUR
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680022
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
----------------------------Dated this the 25th day of May, 2023
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in instalments.
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000, within a
period of six weeks.
for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the directions in the said interim order.
3
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.C Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
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 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
India and entertain the writ petition.
4
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.
SD/-
sks/25.5.2023
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
5
WP(C) No.7157 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7157/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15-
10-2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-01-2023
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to permit installment payment of an overdue bank amount when the petitioner failed to comply with an interim or
Whether the writ petition stand disposed of as an interim order under the SARFAESI Act without interference into the enforcement proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew PhilipReferred¶32
South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320)
JOSEMON P.R
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
C.S. DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court