P.M.Mini vs The Allahabad Bank (Now Indian ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16956 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 10875 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              P.M.MINI, AGED 27 YEARS
              W/O. SANKAR G. DAS,
              RESIDING AT PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
              PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686011.

              BY ADV I.SHEELA DEVI


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE ALLAHABAD BANK (NOW INDIAN BANK)
              11/7724, K.A.V. CENTRAL COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR,
              PALAKKAD BRANCH, PIN-678007.

     2        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
              THE ALLAHABAD BANK (NOW INDIAN BANK), 11/7724,
              K.A.V. CENTRAL COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR,
              PALAKKAD BRANCH, PIN-678007.

              BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN,SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 10875/21
                                       2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P1 notice issued by the learned

Advocate Commissioner - appointed under orders of

the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam -

notifying that the secured asset will be taken

possession of under the provisions of

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest

Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

2. The petitioner concedes that the property

in question had been mortgaged by her as security

of a loan availed of by her from the Bank; but

then asserted that default in servicing the same

was not on account of any deliberate action but

solely because of the Covid-19 pandemic scenario.

She, therefore, prayed that the Bank be directed

to grant her at least 20 equal monthly instalments WPC 10875/21

to pay off the overdues in the loan facility.

3. In response to the afore submissions made

on behalf of the petitioner by her learned counsel

- Smt.I.Sheela Devi, the learned Standing Counsel

for the Bank - Sri.S.Easwaran, submitted that the

loan liability comprises of a Term Loan and an

Overdraft Cash Credit accounts. He submitted that

the balance in the Term Loan as on today is

Rs.22,75,814/-; while that in the cash credit is

Rs.25,69,022/-. He submitted that since the

petitioner has conceded that her business is now

closed down, it may not be possible for the Bank -

in the absence of substantial payments being made

- to even consider up-gradation of the loan

accounts or to regularise them. He, therefore,

offered that if the petitioner makes a payment of

at least Rs.10 lakhs by the end of September 2021,

she can be permitted to make a request to the

competent Authority of the Bank seeking up-

gradation, based on valid documents. He prayed WPC 10875/21

that no further latitude be shown to the

petitioner.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it

is without doubt that on account of the judgments

of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank of

India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and

in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore

and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the

jurisdiction of this Court in considering the

challenge to the steps taken by a Bank under the

SARFAESI Act is extremely inhibited. Obviously,

therefore, this Court can only go as per the

suggestions and consent of the Financial

Institution concerned.

5. However, since I notice that the

petitioner says that she is finding it even

difficult to make ends meet on account of the

Covid-19 pandemic scenario and since she has

deposited Rs.2 lakhs as per the interim orders of

this Court, I am of the opinion that this Court WPC 10875/21

will be justified in reducing the up-front payment

figure suggested by the learned Standing Counsel

to some extent.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

petition, directing the petitioner to pay an

amount of Rs.8 lakhs on or before 30.09.2021; in

which event, she will be at liberty to approach

the Bank, with all necessary documents, seeking

up-gradation of the loan accounts within a period

of two weeks thereafter. If the petitioner does

so, the competent Authority of the Bank will

consider her application, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to her and after

evaluating her documents and take an apposite

decision without any avoidable delay thereafter.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore

directed exercise is completed, all action to

recover amounts from the petitioner based on

Ext.P1 shall stand deferred; however, making it

clear that if she does not deposit the amount as WPC 10875/21

ordered above on or before 30.09.2021, further

action from the stage at which it is available

today can be taken forward without any further

orders.

Sd/-

RR                                    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                           JUDGE
 WPC 10875/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10875/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1            TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.4.2021

ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER SRI. DINESH S. KODUVATH TO THE PETITIONER.

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED EXHIBIT P2 13.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DINESH S.KODUVATH AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM IN M.C.NO.133/2020 TO THE PETITIONER.