Saidali Haji.N. vs The Branch Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 768 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.617 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               SAIDALI HAJI.N., AGED 63 YEARS
               S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, NALAKATH HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM
               P.O., VALANCHERY,
               MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 552.

               SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
               SMT.MEENA.A.
               SRI.K.C.KIRAN
               SMT.M.R.MINI
               SRI.M.DEVESH
               SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH
               SRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
               SRI.THAREEQ ANVER K.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
               VALANCHERRY BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-676 552.

      2        AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
               LCRD, KOZHIKODE DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
               MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 016.

               SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE - 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.617 OF 2021(B)

                                            2


                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

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 followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v.

Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). 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 WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B)

aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency

or latitude in order to enable him 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 him 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.66,55,130/- as on today,

along with other charges and interest, in not more than six WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B)

instalments commencing from 27.01.2021.

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 amount in six equal monthly

instalments commencing from 27.01.2021, along with

applicable charges and interest. 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.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.617 OF 2021(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.14687100000023 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2010 TO 28.12.2020 ISSUED ON 28.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE FLOOR RELIEF LOAN ACCOUNT NO.14686900000555 FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.2018 TO 28.12.2020 ISSUED ON 28.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072850 DATED 17.09.2020 WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONORING THE CHEQUE.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072851 DATED 18.09.2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONOURING THE CHEQUE.

EXHIBIT P4 B TRUE COPY OF CHEQUE NO.072853 DATED 20.09.2020 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE INTIMATION OF DISHONOURING THE CHEQUE.