K.S.Sureshkumar vs Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 692 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.321 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

               K.S.SURESHKUMAR
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O KRISHNAN NAIR,
               ASWATHI, PULAKILKONAM, DALUMMUGHOM P O, VELLARADA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
               SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR
               SMT.M.BINDUDAS
               SRI.K.C.HARISH

RESPONDENTS:

               AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               REPCO HOME FINANCE LIMITED, TC 25/1655(6), I FLOOR,
               REMA PLAZA, SS KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR P O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.




               SRI. P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.321 OF 2021               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

[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

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.5,21,839/-, as on 07/01/2021, in not more

than 12 instalments commencing from 10/02/2021

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

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.5,21,839/-, as on

07/01/2021, along with applicable charges and

interest, in 12 equal monthly instalments

commencing from 10/02/2021. 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.

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/8.1.2021



                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED

5.3.2018 OF REPCO HOME FINANCE LIMITED.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 9/5/2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

EXHIBITP2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 13.06.2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.06.2019 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2019 IN MC NO.473/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.