Kerala High Court
Mr.Abdul Gafoor vs The Kerala State Co-Operative ... on 5 January, 2021
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.144 OF 2021(P)
PETITIONER:
MR.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, EDAVANAKKAD HOUSE,
THIRUVANCHIKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KODUNGALLUR P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYADOM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
KODUNGALLUR BRANCH, TDCB BUILDING,
EAST NADA, KODUNGALLUR P.O.,
PIN-680 669 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATION BANK LTD.,
SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD,
KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 022.
SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 144/21
2
JUDGMENT
Through this writ petition, the
petitioner calls into question 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. As I proceed to consider the reliefs
prayed for by the petitioner herein, 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
WPC 144/21
[(2010) 8 SCC 110] and in Authorised Officer,
State Bank of 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
petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the
limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned,
the petitioner may be granted some leniency or
latitude in order to enable him to pay off the
overdue amounts in installments.
5. I, therefore, enquired with the
learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the
request on the part of the petitioner 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
WPC 144/21
about recovery at the earliest and that if the
petitioner pays off the 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
and taking into account the financial
constraints and burden that have been alleged
and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined
to dispose of this writ petition allowing him
an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts
demanded by the Bank.
7. The learned counsel for the Bank at
this time submits that the petitioner can be
allowed to pay off the overdue amount of
Rs.1,89,660/- as on 31.12.2020 in not more
than ten instalments commencing from
05.02.2021 and that the account can thus be
regularised by the Bank.
8. The learned counsel for the
petitioner says that the petitioner is
agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank
WPC 144/21
and therefore that the writ petition may be
ordered granting permission to the petitioner
to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.
9. In such circumstances, I direct the
petitioner to pay off the aforementioned
overdue amount of Rs.1,89,660/- as on
31.12.2020, along with applicable charges and
interest, in ten equal monthly instalments
commencing from 05.02.2021. He shall also, in
addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without
fail. If such payment is made by the
petitioner, his loan account would stand
regularised and he would then be at liberty to
service the account as per the terms of the
loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that
if there is any default in making the payment
as directed above, the benefit granted under
this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank
will be at liberty to recover the entire
liability from the petitioner by continuing
with the proceedings from the stage it is on
this date.
WPC 144/21
10. I make it clear that the
directions in this judgment are peremptory in
nature and that the petitioner will have to
comply with the same meticulously. I caution
the petitioner that no further requests for
extension or modification of this judgment,
save in exceptional circumstances, will be
permitted and that if the petitioner fails to
comply with the directions herein, he will
lose the benefit of this judgment.
11. After I dictated this judgment,
Sri.P.V.George - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the overdues in
Ext.P1 which is issued on 20.11.2020 is only
Rs.1,62,542/- and therefore, that the
aforementioned overdue appears to be
excessive. He, therefore, prays that his
client be also given liberty to approach the
Bank for reconciliation of the account.
It is needless to say that this liberty
is always available to the petitioner and if
he approaches the Bank with a suitable
WPC 144/21
representation for the purpose of
reconciliation of the account with respect to
the overdue amounts, the same will be
considered by the Bank and if there is any
change in the amount as mentioned by the
learned Standing Counsel, the said benefit
will be permitted while he makes his
installments in terms of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered
accordingly.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 144/21
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20.11.2020 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 29.12.2020 UNDER SECTION 13(4)
OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT.
