Humayoon Kabir vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 16782 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 11012 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

     1       HUMAYOON KABIR
             AGED 62 YEARS
             KAVALAKKAL HOUSE, KOLLAKADAVU P.O,
             CHENGANNUR-690 509.

     2       MUTHU BEEVI,
             W/O. HUMAYOON KABIR, KAVALAKKAL HOUSE,
             KOLLAKADAVU P.O, CHENGANNUR-690 509.


             BY ADV. SMT. SARASWATHI PALEREKEEZHIL


RESPONDENTS:

     1       UNION OF INDIA,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
             DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 46, NORTH BLOCK,
             NEW DELHI-110 001,
     2       CANARA BANK
             PVR COMPLEX, VANDIMALA JUNCTION, MC ROAD,
             CHENGANNUR-689 121
             REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
     3       D. JAYESH
             ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, ADVOCATE, THONDANKULANGARA,
             NEAR FEDERAL BANK, ALAPPUZHA 688 013
             BY ADVS.
             M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
             K.JOHN MATHAI
             JOSON MANAVALAN
             KURYAN THOMAS
             PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
             RAJA KANNAN
             SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, CGC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   11.08.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.11012 of 2021 (B)
                                     2


                     Devan Ramachandran, J.
            ----------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C)No.11012 of 2021 (B)
         -----------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 11th day of August, 2021

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners assail 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 in Authorised Officer, State Bank of WPC No.11012 of 2021 (B)

Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. (2018 (1) KLT

784). 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 petitioners has prayed that

notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as

aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency

or latitude to enable them 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

petitioners 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 petitioners pay 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 WPC No.11012 of 2021 (B)

and taking into account the financial constraints and burden

that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioners, I am

inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them 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 petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total

outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.60,78,042/- as on

10.08.2021, along with other charges and interest, in not

more than 12 instalments commencing from 15.09.2021.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the

petitioners are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank

and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting

permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the

manner as afore.

9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to

pay off the aforementioned amount in 12 equal monthly

instalments commencing from 15.09.2021, along with

applicable charges and interest. It goes without saying that if

there is any default in making the payment as directed above, WPC No.11012 of 2021 (B)

the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated

and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability

from the petitioners by continuing with the proceedings from

the stage it is on this date.

10. I make it clear that the directions in this judgment

are peremptory in nature and that the petitioners will have to

comply with the same meticulously.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge

ww WPC No.11012 of 2021 (B)

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA 455/2020 OF THE DRT -II ERNALKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29-

4-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.