Mallika Jayan vs The Trichur Urban Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11105 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.8888 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

              MALLIKA JAYAN,
              AGED 45 YEARS,
              W/O JAYAN,
              KAALAAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
              VELUTHOOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 012.

              BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ

RESPONDENT:

              THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
              REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
              HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS,
              THRISSUR-680001.

              BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J., STANDING COUNSEL.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.8888 OF 2021

                                           2




                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of April 2021

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner argues that several irregularities and

illegalities have taken place in the matter as the

respondent bank has not issued demand notice under

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for regularization of loan

account by granting facility of installments and

suitable directions needs to be given on

representation of the petitioner at Exhibit P2.

3. As against this, the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that

pursuant to the sale notice issued by the respondent

bank on 09-03-2021, the respondent itself has

purchased the secured asset and therefore, now the

question of regularization of the account is not

there. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for WP(C).No.8888 OF 2021

the respondent, submits that the notice issued in

March 2021 for sale of the secured asset was second

sale notice.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner have taken

two loans by mortgaging his assets. The petitioner

could not pay the installments and therefore the

respondent had resorted to the provisions of the

SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has placed on record

the sale notice issued by the respondent under the

SARFAESI Act and Rules. The learned Standing

Counsel has made statement at bar on instructions

from his client that pursuant to the sale notice

issued on 09-03-2021, the respondent itself has

purchased the secured assets.

5. If there is any irregularity or illegality

in adhering to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,

then proper form to agitate the same is the forum as

prescribed by the said Act. Under writ jurisdiction

by this Court the petitioner can avail remedy to

agitate this aspect as per the provisions of the WP(C).No.8888 OF 2021

SARFAESI Act.

6. So far as regularization of the loan account

is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel

for the respondent that the respondent bank has

decided to purchase the secured asset. Even

otherwise it is for the respondent bank to decide

the matter of regularization of the loan as per the

contract entered into between the parties. This

Court cannot regularize the loan account.

For reasons stated above, there is no scope

of interference in the instant petition and the same

is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/07/04 WP(C).No.8888 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 09.03.2021 EXHIBIT P1 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1A.

TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER ISSUED BY EXHIBIT P2 THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2021.

EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE TRANSLATION OF P2.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL


SSK                      //TRUE COPY//            PA TO JUDGE