Kerala High Court
K.N.Nafeesa vs The Authorized Officer/Manager on 8 January, 2021
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.15 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER:
K.N.NAFEESA
AGED 80 YEARS
W/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, RATNAPURI, ERG ROAD,
COCHIN-682 014.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, AT HDFC HOUSE, P.O. BOX
1700, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 015.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, 19, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU-600 001.
3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/MANAGER
M/S. MAXTEX NET PVT.LTD., NO.37, FIRST FLOOR,
CHAMIERS TOWER, CHAMIERS ROAD, THEYNAMPET, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU-600 028.
4 K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, RANGOON, 37/2127A, OPP. MARVEL
MANSION, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017.
5 K.N.MARZOOK
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, 191/8, FLORA, 35 DIVISION,
KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017.
6 K.N.FAJAR
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE C.K.KASMI, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE,
COCHIN-682 018.
7 V.M.JESNA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR, RANGOON, 37/2127A, OPP. MARVEL
MANSION, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O., COCHIN-682 017.
WP(C).No.15 OF 2021 2
8 REHNA A.M.
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. K.N.MARZOOK, 191/8, FLORA, 35 DIVISION,
KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017.
9 NILOOFER FAJAR
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. K.N.FAJAR, ABAD MARINE PLAZA,MARINE DRIVE,
COCHIN-682 014.
10 M/S.METRO PLUS
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER.
11 FORMOST
M.G.ROAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER.
12 M/S.COLOMBO UMBRELLAS
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER.
R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR
R4, R7, R11 BY ADV. SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW
R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEJITH
R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SMT.TELMA RAJU
R5, R8, R10, R12 BY ADV. SRI.SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB
R5, R10, R12 BY ADV. CHRISTINA ANNA PAUL
R8 BY ADV. CHRIISTNA ANNA PAUL
R6 AND R9 - BY ADV. ADITHYAN EDAPPALLY
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. MATHEW KUZHALNADAN - 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.15 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
An octogenarian widow, who is the mother of
respondents 4 to 6, who are all business men in
Kerala have approached this Court seeking
indulgence from being thrown out of her
ancestral home, through the steps initiated by
the Standard Chartered Bank under the
provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the
SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. The petitioner impugns Exts.P1 and P2
notice and publication for sale respectively
issued by the Bank and seeks that she be given
some time to pay off the overdues in the loan
account, which had been availed of by
respondents 4 to 12. She says that if this
benefit is not granted to her, she will have no
place to reside in the winter of her life and
therefore, prays that this Court allow her the
afore requested lenitude.
3. In response to the submissions of the
petitioner, as made by her learned counsel
Shri.Millu Dandapani, the learned Standing
Counsel for the Standard Chartered Bank -
Shri.Mathew Kuzhalnaden, submitted that the
total outstanding in the loan account, as of
today, is Rs.80,22,015/- out of which
Rs.68,68,952/- is the Principal. He added to
this by saying that the overdues in the loan
account is Rs.38,19,324/- and that respondents
4 to 12 are all very successful business
persons/entitles who are capable and having the
means to pay off the outstanding itself in
lumpsum. He, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed; but submitted - on being
specifically asked by this Court whether any
indulgence can be shown to the petitioner on
account of her age and status - that if she
pays at least the overdue amount of
Rs.38,19,324/- and submits an application for
One Time Settlement, the Bank can consider the
same and defer the sale of the property for a
short period of time.
4. Shri.Thomas John Ambooken, learned
counsel appearing for respondents 4,7 and 11;
Shri.Anil D. Nair, learned counsel appearing
for respondents 5,8,10 and 12 and Shri.Adithyan
Edappally, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 6 and 9, submitted that their
clients are now facing extreme financial crisis
on account of the COVID-19 pandemic
disruptions, and their respective businesses
have been badly hit on account of the financial
crisis faced by the country as a whole. They,
however, submitted that they are willing to
support the petitioner in finding a solution to
the imbroglio, particularly because the
property in question is their ancestral house,
to which all of them attach a lot of
sentimental value. They, therefore, prayed that
this Court may allow the petitioner to pay off
the overdues in at least 15 days time.
5. When I consider the afore submissions,
it is indubitable that the jurisdiction of this
Court, while dealing with a challenge to the
steps taken by a Bank or Financial Institution
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act is
severely restricted or even proscribed on
account of the judgments 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], Obviously, therefore, this Court
can grant relief to the petitioner only to the
extent to which it is acceded to by the
respondent - Bank.
6. That said, the afore narration makes it
clear that the Bank requires the petitioner to
remit the overdue amount of Rs.38,19,324/- at
the earliest, so that they can then consider an
One Time Settlement proposal to be offered by
her.
7. I am, therefore, of the view,
especially taking note of the advanced stage of
the petitioner, that this Court will be
justified in granting her at least that relief
to her.
Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,
directing the petitioner to remit an amount of
Rs.38,20,000/-, on or before 15/01/2021 into
the loan account in question; and if this is
done she will be at liberty to make a proposal
for One Time Settlement simultaneously, which
will then be considered by the competent
Authority of the Bank, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to her as well as
the borrowers and guarantors - either
physically or through video conferencing - thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon,
without further delay thereafter.
In the meanwhile, until 15/01/2021, the
respondent - Bank will be at liberty to accept
the bids pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, but
they shall not allow physical inspection of the
secured asset in question, since the petitioner
is residing there.
Needless to say, if the afore amounts are
not paid by 15/01/2021, the Bank can permit
inspection of the property on 16th, 17th and 18th
January, 2021 and the sale can also go on on
the 19th January, 2021 as scheduled.
It goes without saying that if the
petitioner pays the amounts in terms of the
afore directions, the Bank will defer the sale
scheduled on 19/01/2021 and will thereafter
conduct only after it considers the One Time
settlement offer to be made by the petitioner
and after the resultant order is communicated
to her.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/11.1.2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
7.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
U/S. 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF E-
AUCTION DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED BY
THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS THROUGH
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
