IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER:
SAIDALI HAJI.N., AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, NALAKATH HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM
P.O., VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 552.
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.M.DEVESH
SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH
SRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
SRI.THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
VALANCHERRY BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676 552.
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
LCRD, KOZHIKODE DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 016.
SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of January 2021 The petitioner assails certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. When I deal with this writ petition, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC
110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B) 3 aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.
5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.
6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.
7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.66,55,130/- as on today, along with other charges and interest, in not more than six WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B) 4 instalments commencing from 27.01.2021.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.
9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned amount in six equal monthly instalments commencing from 27.01.2021, along with applicable charges and interest. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.
I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.14687100000023 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2010 TO 28.12.2020 ISSUED ON 28.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE FLOOR RELIEF LOAN ACCOUNT NO.14686900000555 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2018 TO 28.12.2020 ISSUED ON 28.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072850 DATED 17.09.2020 WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONORING THE CHEQUE.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072851 DATED 18.09.2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONOURING THE CHEQUE.
EXHIBIT P4 B TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072853 DATED 20.09.2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONOURING THE CHEQUE.