Sivan.P.V vs The Canara Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 74 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER:

               SIVAN.P.V
               AGED 50 YEARS
               S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PLAPPILLY HOUSE,
               NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O.,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 581.

               BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE CANARA BANK
               ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
               683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

      2        THE CHIEF MANAGER.
               ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572.




               SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR-SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.27897 OF 2020                2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning the steps taken by the 1st 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. However it is now well established,

through 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], that the jurisdiction

of this Court in dealing with matters arising

under the SARFAESI Act is severely restricted

and even proscribed.

3. Discerning my mind as afore, the

learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Anoop

V.Nair, submitted that his client has been

constrained to approach this Court through this

writ petition, only because he wants to pay off

the entire liability to the Bank in a few

instalments.

4. I, therefore, asked the learned

Standing Counsel for the bank, Shri.Gopikrishnan

Nambiar, as to if they are willing to accede to

the petitioner's request, to which he submitted

that if the petitioner remits at least 15% of

the outstanding amount by 20/01/2021 and the

rest in not more than 8 instalments, the Bank is

willing to give him the said latitude.

5. Shri.Anoop V.Nair, in response, acceded

to the afore suggestion and prayed that this

writ petition be ordered on such terms.

In the afore circumstances, taking note of

the submissions of Shri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar -

that the total outstanding from the petitioner,

as on 18/12/2020, is Rs.2,67,000/-, I order

this writ petition and direct the petitioner to

pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- on or before

20/01/2021 and the balance, along with all

applicable charges and interest, in 8 equal

monthly instalments commencing from 15/2/2020.

I make it clear that the directions afore

are peremptory in nature and that he shall pay

off the amounts as ordered above without fail.

Needless to say, as long as the petitioner

continues to make payment in terms of the afore

directions, the action now pursued by the Bank

under the SARFAESI Act will stand deferred;

however leaving them full liberty to continue

with the same, if any instalment as afore

ordered is defaulted by him.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/4.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 02.12.2020 FOR TAKING SYMBOLIC POSSESSION OF ABOVE PROPERTY.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE