Dismissed

Reshmi S. Kumar, v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023WP(C)/7684/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking directions to the Respondent Bank to consider her offer under the One-time Settlement Scheme in lieu of proceeding against the secured asset. The court found the petition infructuous as the Bank had already granted an extension.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without enlarging the time period already granted by the Bank.

Reshmi S. Kumar, Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RESHMI S. KUMAR,
AGED 36 YEARS

¶7

W/O ANURAG T.V.,RESIDING AT RESHMI BHAVAN, MELATHIL
PUTHAN VEEDU, CHANTHAVILA, KATTAYIKONAM, IROOPARA,
POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695584

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

T.C.SURESH MENON
B.DEEPAK

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶12

CANARA BANK, KAZHAKUTTAM BRANCH, SAAYOOJYAM COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, NH BYPASS, KAZHAKUTTAM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582

¶13

2THE CHIEF MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, KAZHAKUTTAM BRANCH, SAAYOOJYAM COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, NH BYPASS, KAZHAKUTTAM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695582

¶14

3 CANARA BANK,

¶15

KAZHAKUTTAM BRANCH, SAAYOOJYAM COMPLEX,1ST FLOOR, NH
BYPASS, KAZHAKUTTAM JUNCTION,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.-
695582

¶17

 SRI. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner to grant her the benefit of the One-time Settlement Scheme.

¶24

The petitioner’s case is that, her husband had availed a loan from the third respondent by creating an equitable mortgage. However, due to grave financial crisis, her husband committed suicide. The respondents have now proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 28.2.2023, volunteering to pay off the outstanding amount by availing the One-time

¶25

WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

Settlement Scheme. Notwithstanding the pendency of Ext.P5 representation, the respondents are proceeding to take possession of the secured asset. Hence, the writ petition.

¶28

Heard; Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions, submitted that, the writ petition has become infructuous because Ext.P5 representation was considered by the respondents on 24.3.2023, by granting the petitioner 18 days time to pay the outstanding amount. Since, the respondents have already granted the petitioner an extension, this Court may not entertain the writ petition and enlarge the time period in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Private Ltd .[2022

¶30

WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

KHC 7165]. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶33

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 3.4.2023, this Court directed coercive proceedings to be deferred and directed the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount before 24.5.2023. On 25.5.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.1,04,00,000/-and has approached the bank for the waiver of the interest quotient of Rs.26,00,000/-.

¶34

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submission made across the bar, especially the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any extra ordinary circumstances made out in the writ petition to enlarge the time period already granted by the third respondent. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to approach the third respondent-Bank and seek for their indulgence, if not, exhaust her statutory remedy as provided under the Act.

¶35

WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶36

¶37

Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to workout her remedies, in accordance with

¶38

law, the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm7/6/2023

WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7684/2023

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT REGISTERED ON THE FILE OF THE
POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, DATED
25.6.2022.
Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION
13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 1.8.2022.
Exhibit-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT,
DATED 29.11.2022.
Exhibit-P4TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 6.12.2022.
Exhibit-P5TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
DATED 28.2.2023.

Reshmi S. Kumar, v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshmi S. Kumar, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.K. Mohan Vs Unio of India

Vishnu Babu Raj Vs the Branch Manager

Abhilash.S., Vs Kerala State Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Petra Distributors, Vs Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Aboobacker P.K Vs the Authorized Officer

Niyas K a., Vs Authorized Officer & Chief Manager