Dennis Joseph vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1252 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.28650 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER:

               DENNIS JOSEPH
               AGED 47 YEARS
               S/O. JOSEPH, EROORIKKAL HOUSE, KOODARANJI P.O,
               KOZHIKODE-673 604

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.E.NARAYANAN
               SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR M.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
               RECOVERY SECTION, KALLAI ROAD, PALAPPURAM P.O,
               KOZHIKODE-673 002.

      2        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KALLAI ROAD,
               PALAPPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 002


OTHER PRESENT:

               SC-SRI GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.28650 OF 2020(E)

                                  2

                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter to be

referred to the Mediator at Calicut, whereas the learned standing

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the huge

amount of loan is outstanding and terms of loan has expired in the

year 2016. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank submits

that the outstanding amount is more than Rs. 37,00,000/- (Rupees

Thirty Seven Lakhs Only).

2. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank submits

that by way of indulgences, the Bank can at the most permit refund of

entire amount of loan with accrued interest and other charges in ten

equated monthly installments and if such course of action is taken by

the petitioner, then the respondent Bank will consider keeping in

abeyance, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The term

of loan expired in the year 2016 and the outstanding amount is more

than 37,00,000/-. The petitioner is challenging notice at Ext.P1 which

is issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thus the

petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the secured creditor for

recovery of debt. There is alternate and most efficacious remedy of WP(C).No.28650 OF 2020(E)

approaching the DRT for challenging the steps action taken by the

secured creditor for recovery of loan. Though the learned counsel for

the petitioner is stating at the bar that he is not challenging the action

under the SARFAESI Act, the entire pleadings and reliefs sought

makes it clear that the main challenge is the action taken under the

SARFAESI Act. The petition is therefore not maintainable in the light

of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another vs.

Mathew K.C ((2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 85)(DB).

The petition is accordingly dismissed. However the petitioner

may approach the respondent Bank for which payment of entire

amount of loan with overdue interest and other charges and the

respondent Bank may consider the same, if so advised according to

law.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.28650 OF 2020(E)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, DATED 3.9.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.20 (WITH LEGIBLE COPY).