Bony Chacko vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 8524 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.6493 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

               BONY CHACKO
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O. LATE CHACKO, KAVANAMALIL HOUSE, NANGELIPPADI,
               PULLUVAZHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
               SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
               SMT.C.B.SABEELA
               SMT.JISHA SASI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
               CANARA BANK, CHEMMANAM SQUARE, P.P. ROAD,
               PERUMBAVOOR-683542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2        THE BRANCH MANGER,
               CANARA BANK, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, CHEMMANAM SQUARE,
               P.P. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6493/2021                      2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of March 2021

The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs in this writ petition.

i. A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P3 application of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to remit the overdrawn amount in instalments within a reasonable period.

ii. A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2 in connection with the possession of the secured property, till the disposal of Exhibit P3 application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner would deposit some amount and accordingly, steps

sought to be taken by the respondent-Bank in pursuant to the

communication at Ext.P2 be stayed.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

petitioner is indirectly challenging the action sought to be taken by

the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. Hence the writ

petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable in the light 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). So far as the grant of

instalments is concerned, the petitioner was already having facility

for instalments which he has failed to avail. The grant of

instalments is solely the prerogative of the respondent-financial

institution. This Court cannot force the respondents to grant

instalments in contractual matters.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the respondents to consider the application at

Ext.P3 according to the provisions of law.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE VIDE NO.3394/261/66 DATED 15/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp