Joji Philip vs The Branch Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 14736 Ker

                       A.M. BADAR, J.
              ------------------------------------
                Unnumbered W.P. (C) of 2021
              ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021

                          ORDER

This unnumbered petition is taken up for consideration

waiving office objection as the learned Standing Counsel for

respondent pleaded urgency.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He

argued that loan of Rs.59.60 lakhs was availed on 10.06.2013

and today, the Advocate Commissioner armed with the order

of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is taking possession of

the secured asset. It is argued that the petitioner has lost his

job and because of Covid-19 pandemic, he could not service

the loan in due time. It is also urged that the petitioner would

clear the overdue amount in six months.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

request of the petitioner is for regularisation of the loan. This

Court cannot direct the creditor to regularise the loan account.

It is the sole prerogative of the secured creditor/Bank to

permit the petitioner to regularise the loan account. This

petition is filed virtually challenging the notice of the Advocate

Commissioner issued under the SARFAESI Act after passing of

the order under Section 14 of the said Act by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate. In the wake of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Authorized Officer,

State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C

(2018(1) KLT 784), this Court cannot interfere in the steps

taken by the secured creditor for realising the dues. The

petitioner has alternate and most efficacious remedy of

challenging the notice at Ext.P1 by approaching the Debts

Recovery Tribunal.

This writ petition is therefore rejected with liberty to the

petitioner to avail alternate remedy.

Sd/-

A.M. BADAR JUDGE

smp