Josco @ Ouseph vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 695 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.508 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

               JOSCO @ OUSEPH
               AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O. KURIAN, PUTHOOKKARA HOUSE, ERUMAPPETTY P. O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680584.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.C.A.CHACKO
               SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
               BANK LTD.
               SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD,
               KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADI P. O.,
               THRISSUR - 680 022.

      2        THE BRANCH MANAGER
               KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ERUMAPPETTY
               BRANCH, ERUMAPPETTY P. O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 584.




               SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA - 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.508 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.8,38,424/- as on 31/12/2020 in not more

than 12 instalments commencing from

10/02/2021 and that the two loan accounts 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.8,38,424/- in two loan

accounts as on 31/12/2020, 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/11.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S PASSBOOK OF HOUSING LOAN.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF PETITIONER'S SON JIJO JOSE ISSUED FORM KORATTY COVID FIRST LINE TREATMENT CENTRE.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 4.1.2021 IS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                       (TRUE COPY)               PA TO JUDGE