Kannan T vs The Assistant General Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 141 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.164 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONER:

               KANNAN T
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O LATE THANKAPPAN,
               SAYABI, TOWN LIMIT,
               KADAPPAKKARA, KOLLAM-691008.

               BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
               STATE BANK OF INDIA,
               VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      2        THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
               STATE BANK OF INDIA,
               VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      3        THE CHIEF MANAGER
               STATE BANK OF INDIA,
               VIKAS BHAVAN P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

      4        THE BRANCH   MANAGER
               STATE BANK   OF INDIA,
               COMMERCIAL   BRANCH,
               CHAMAKKADA   P O, KOLLAM-691001.




               SRI. JAWAHAR JOSE - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.164 OF 2021                 2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner concedes that he has

availed of certain large loan facilities from

the respondent - State Bank of India

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for

short) and has approached this Court impugning

Ext.P1 notice of sale issued by the said Bank

for sale of secured asset.

2. According to the petitioner, he has

been always willing and ready to pay off the

loan liability, but that on account of the

fact that he has been classified incorrectly

and illegally as a "willful defaulter", he has

been mulcted with larger penalties and

detriment, thus incapacitating him from

liquidating the liability. The petitioner,

therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be set aside and

the Bank be directed to allow him to settle

the loan liability under the One Time

Settlement Scheme, as is discernible from

Ext.P3.

3. In response to the submissions of

Shri.I.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the

petitioner as afore, Shri.Jawahar Jose,

learned counsel for the respondents, submitted

that the petitioner is not entitled to seek

settlement of the loan liability under Ext.P3

because he did not even pay the first

instalment under it until now. He submitted

that the term of the said One Time Settlement

is now over; but added that the petitioner has

been offered another settlement at Rs.3 Crores

and that if he pays this amount within a

period of one month, the loan liabilities will

stand fully liquidated. He added that this is

the best offer that the Bank can offer to the

petitioner, because, as per the accounts, more

than Rs.23.23 Crores is due from him, in three

loan accounts and that Ext.P1 has been issued

for recovery of the same.

4. Shri.Jawahar Jose, therefore, prayed

that either the petitioner be directed to pay

Rs.3 Crores within a period of one month from

today in full and final settlement of all the

three loan accounts; or that this Court

dismiss this writ petition, finding it be not

maintainable.

5. It is indubitable, going by the

affirmative declarations 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 Travancore and

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

the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with

matters arising under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the

SARFAESI Act' for brevity) is severely restricted

and even proscribed.

6. However, since the Bank now offers that

the petitioner can be allowed to liquidate the

loan liability by payment of Rs.3 Crores within a

period of one month from today, I asked

Shri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned counsel for the

petitioner, whether his client is interested in

accepting this suggestion.

7. Shri.I.Dinesh Menon, in response,

submitted that since his client has no other

option, he will agree to the offer now made by

the Bank and thus prayed that this Court order

this writ petition on such terms.

In the afore circumstances, without

entering into the merits of any of the

dialectical contentions of the parties, I

order this writ petition and direct the Bank

to defer the sale of the properties, as

notified through Ext.P1, until 05/02/2021;

with a concomitant direction to the petitioner

to pay an amount of Rs.3 Crores - which is

stated to be the One Time Settlement figure -

so as to liquidate the liability in all the

three loan accounts, on or before 05/02/2021.

It goes without saying that if the

petitioner pays the amounts as afore directed

and within the time granted, then the Bank

will cease all further proceedings pursuant to

Ext.P1 and return the title documents of the

secured assets to the petitioner or to the

mortgagor, as the case may be; but if on the

contrary, the petitioner defaults in payment

as ordered above, the Bank will be at liberty

to continue further proceedings from the stage

at which it is available today based on Ext.P1

for sale of the secured assets without having

to seek any further orders from this Court.

At this time, Shri.Jawahar Jose brought to

my notice a practical difficulty that may be

faced by the Bank when the sale is deferred,

namely, that a fresh sale notification will

have to be published, should the petitioner

default payment in terms of this judgment.

This certainly is an issue that the Bank

will have to face and I, therefore, asked

Shri.I.Disnesh Menon, learned counsel for the

petitioner, whether his client will suffer the

cost of the said publication also, if it

becomes so warranted.

Shri.I.Dinesh Menon, in answer submitted

that his client will take full responsibility

for this and that if he is unable to make

payment as per this judgment, the Bank may

left liberty to charge the amount for the next

publication also to his account. He also

submitted that his client will not insist on a

fresh publication in such event and that the

Bank may be left liberty to take a decision on

this appropriately. This is recorded.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/5.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 2.8.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME DATED 19.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.9400/2020 DATED 3.8.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR FRESH PROPOSAL DATED 31.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DATED 31.12.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL



MC

                       (TRUE COPY)               PA TO JUDGE