IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 27479 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JASEELA P.P
AGED 42 YEARS
AMINA MANZIL, ILLAM MOOLA, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR
DESOM, P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADVS.
JITHIN S SUNDARAN
K.V.PAVITHRAN
JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK
REP. BY ITS MANAGER & PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE BANK,
THE MANAGER, MATTANNUR BRANCH, P.O. MATTANNUR, PIN -
670702
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADV SUNIL SHANKER
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. S. EASWARAN (SC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.27479/2022 -2-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). In respect of the very same loan transaction the husband of the petitioner had filed a writ petition and had obtained Ext.P4 judgment through which he was permitted to clear the liability in 12 equal monthly installments. That judgment was in the month of February, 2021. The husband of the petitioner did not clear the liability. The claim of the present petitioner is that the marriage of her son is scheduled to be held in the property which is subject matter of mortgage with the bank in month of December, 2022 and the proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the month of January, 2023.
2. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank states that this writ petition is clearly not maintainable and is an abuse of process of court. It is submitted that eventhough the husband of the petitioner had defaulted in paying the amount due as directed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment, he was informed that the bank will consider one time settlement. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was scheduled to meet the bank officials and in the meantime the petitioner had moved this court with the present writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am clearly of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition will stand dismissed, making it clear that it is always open to the petitioner or her husband to approach the bank for one time settlement.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE AMG W.P (C) No.27479/2022 -3- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27479/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2020 ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF W.P.(C) NO.2868/21 ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.2.2021 ExhibitP5 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2021 TO 11.8.2022