Dismissed

Pdmc Industries, through Its Managing Partner Bobby Isaac Mathew, v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC21 May 2024WP(C)/29909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrowers challenged SARFAESI notices issued by South Indian Bank after their loan accounts were classified NPA following non-renewal of mining licences. The court held writ jurisdiction was not maintainable given the efficacious statutory remedy before the Tribunal, and dismissed the petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pdmc Industries, through Its Managing Partner Bobby… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 29909 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PDMC INDUSTRIES, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER BOBBY ISAAC MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS S/O P.D. MATHEW, TTCMPS BUILDING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685567, RESIDING AT THAZHATHU PULINGAPPALLIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686631.

¶7

BY ADVS. MEENA.A. VINOD RAVINDRANATH K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K. NIVEDHITHA PREM.V

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD, COLLECTRATE PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶10

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, P.B. NO.6507, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033 REPERSENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶11

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 2 :

¶12

BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE P.V.PARVATHY (P-41) REENA THOMAS NIGI GEORGE ANANTHU V.LAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).32498/2023, 32643/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases

¶15

: 3 :

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 32498 OF 2023

¶20

PETITIONER:

¶21

BOBBY ISAAC MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O P.D. MATHEW, TTCMPS BUILDING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685567, RESIDING AT THAZHATHU PULINGAPPALLIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686631.

¶22

BY ADV M.R.MINI

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD, COLLECTRATE PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶25

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, P.B NO 6507, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN - 695033 REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶26

BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE P.V.PARVATHY (P-41) REENA THOMAS NIGI GEORGE ANANTHU V.LAL

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).29909/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 32643 OF 2023

¶33

PETITIONER:

¶34

M/S. PDMC CO RUBBER THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR BOBBY ISAAC MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O P.D. MATHEW, TTCMPS BUILDING, MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685567, RESIDING AT THAZHATHUPULINGAPPALLIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA ROAD, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686631.

¶35

BY ADVS. M.R.MINI VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. K.C.KIRAN M.DEVESH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K. NIVEDHITHA PREM.V

¶36

RESPONDENTS:

¶37

1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD, COLLECTRATE PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶38

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, P.B NO 6507, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN - 695033 REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE P.V.PARVATHY (P-41) REENA THOMAS NIGI GEORGE ANANTHU V.LAL

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).29909/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 6 :

¶44

N. NAGARESH, J.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos.29909, 32498 and 32643 of 2023

¶47

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶50

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 is filed by a Partnership

¶51

Firm which is operating a crusher unit. The Firm availed a Cash Credit Overdraft Loan from the South Indian Bank to the tune of ₹2 Crores. A further financial assistance under ECLGS was granted to the Firm of an amount of ₹49 lakhs. The Mining and Geology Department did not renew their licence which resulted in suspension of operations of the industry. The loan account was declared as NPA. The Bank recalled the loans and initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶52

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 7 :

¶53

The petitioner would contend that the unit was stopped temporarily due to unavoidable circumstances. The functioning of the unit has resumed. The petitioner will be able to pay defaulted instalments and interest if a short time is given. Categorising the petitioner's loan account as NPA

¶54

is improper and illegal. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶55

The Bank issued yet another notice dated 31.07.2023. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.32643/2023 challenging Ext.P3 notice dated 31.07.2023 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Bank has demanded ₹5,01,41,063.82. The petitioner would urge that the petitioner is ready to pay the defaulted instalments and interest and representation submitted by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Bank.

¶56

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 8 :

¶57

W.P.(C) No.32498/2023 has been filed by the

¶58

Managing Partner of the Firm seeking to direct the Bank not to proceed with the steps under the Securitisation and

¶59

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 already initiated against the petitioner and to grant an opportunity to the petitioner for paying the defaulted instalments and interest and to revive the KCC account. The loan availed by the petitioner in this writ petition is to the tune of ₹2.75 Crores. The loan was availed for cultivating cardamom. The temporary suspension of operations was as a result of the non-renewal of the licence by the Mining and Geology Department. According to the petitioner, categorising the loan account as NPA and blocking KCC operating accounts are illegal and unjustifiable. The petitioner seeks to direct the 1^st respondent-Bank not to proceed with the steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶60

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 9 :

¶61

The respondents resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents pointed out that the Bank is a private company and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The accounts of the petitioners were classified as NPA as there was no business activity. The borrower did not submit the stock statement and consequently, the loan accounts were classified as NPA. The respondents are proceeding strictly

¶62

in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶63

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶64

The 1^st respondent in all these writ petitions is a private Bank. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733] that a writ petition is not maintainable

¶65

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 10 :

¶66

against a private company. Furthermore, the petitioners are challenging proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent-Bank invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶67

It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.

¶68

In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

¶69

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 11 :

¶70

Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.

¶71

In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29] , the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

¶72

In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.

¶73

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases

¶74

: 12 :

¶75

In the light of the categorical pronouncements of

¶76

law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶79

aks/13.05.2024

¶80

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases

¶81

: 13 :

¶82

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29909/2023

¶83

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶84

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY 1ST RESPON	OF DEN	THE T ON	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 12.04.2023
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY		OF	THE NOTICE DATED
	19.04.2023 RESPONDENT	BA	ISSU NK TO	ED BY THE 1ST THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY 08.05.2023	OF BE	THE FORE	REPRESENTATION DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY 1ST RESPON	OF DEN	THE T DAE	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TD 02.06.2023
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY THE 1ST RE	OF SPO	THE NDENT	REPRESENTATION BEFORE DATED NIL
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF BA	THE NK DA	REPLY FROM THE 1ST TED 07.07.2023
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY ON 06.07.2	OF 023	THE TO T	MINING LICENSE ISSUED HE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8	TRUE COP 01.08.2023	Y IN	OF W.P.	THE ORDER DATED (C) NO.24761/2023
Exhibit P9	TRUE COP CERTIFICAT THE GOVERN	Y E D MEN	OF ATED T OF	THE REGISTRATION 27.11.2020 ISSUED BY INDIA
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY 02.09.2023	OF	THE	REPRESENTATION DATED

¶85

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 14 :

¶86

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32498/2023

¶87

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶88

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.05.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.05.2023 FILED BY THE PETTIOER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPODENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.07.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.09.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPODENT

¶89

W.P.(C) No.29909/2023 & connected cases : 15 :

¶90

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32643/2023

¶91

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶92

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY	OF	THE NOTICE DATED
	02.05.2023 BANK TO THE	SENT B PETIT	Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT IONER
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY BY THE PE BEFORE THE	OF THE TITION 1ST RE	REPRESENTATION FILED ER DATED 10.05.2023 SPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY	OF	THE NOTICE DATED
	31.07.2023 RESPONDENT	ISSU	ED BY THE 1ST
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY 12.09.2023	OF THE BEFORE	REPRESENTATION DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Pdmc Industries, through Its Managing Partner Bobby Isaac Mathew, v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pdmc Industries, through Its Managing Partner Bobby Isaac Mathew, v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleesh M K Vs the State Bank of India

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Mariyamu, Vs Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Somu P.M Vs The Manager Kerala state Co-operative Bank

Sobin Mathew, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.D James, Vs District Collector