Jyothi Rema K.G vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 548 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.29014 OF 2020(B)


PETITIONER:

               JYOTHI REMA K.G.
               AGED 56 YEARS
               W/O. LATE N.HARIDAS, VIDHYANIKETHAN, T.R.51/195,
               PUNNATHALA, PCNRA-25, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O.,
               KOLLAM-691 012.

               BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

RESPONDENTS:

               THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               KOLLAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED NO.960,
               Y.M.C.A. ROAD, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.

               R1 BY ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29014 OF 2020            2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner assails 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 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 her 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 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 about recovery at the

earliest and that if the petitioner pays 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 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 her 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 petitioner can be

allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which

is stated to be Rs.19,62,098/- as on

07/01/2021; and that if the petitioner pays at

least 50% of the same by 20/03/2021, the

balance amount, along with all other charges

and interest, can be allowed to be paid in not

more than 5 equal monthly instalments

thereafter. She submitted that the Bank is not

willing to grant any further lenitude to the

petitioner, because the secured assets have

already been notified for sale through the

impugned proceedings.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that his client is agreeable to the

above offer made by the Bank 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 an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs on

or before 20/03/2021; in which event, she will

be allowed to pay off the balance outstanding,

along with all applicable charges and interest,

in 5 equal monthly instalments commencing from

05/04/2021.

10. 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.

11. 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.

              This       writ   petition    is     ordered

      accordingly.




                                           Sd/-

                                    DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                           JUDGE

MC/7.1.2021



                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.9.2017

IN M.C.NO.817/2016 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER AS PER THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2020 IN WPC NO.9400/2020 OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE