Abdul Nazar Madathil vs Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 8681 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.6715 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER/S:

                ABDUL NAZAR MADATHIL, AGED 49 YEARS
                S/O. ABDULLA, MADATHIL HOUSE, EDACHERI P.O.,
                VADAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 502

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
                SHRI.JAYACHANDRAN P.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         SECRETARY, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
                KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 002

      2         AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
                KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
                KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 002




                SRI. P.C SASIDHARAN - STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6715 OF 2021                     2



                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

''i) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the respondents bank to allow more time, 1 year/12 months, to the petitioner to make the payment of the overdue amount and to be kept in abeyance all the further proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P1 notice.

ii) To direct the respondent bank to give up all further coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance to Exhibit P1 notice.''

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had availed Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only)

from the respondents and Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and

fifty thousand only) has already been repaid. However, thereafter,

no payments could be made and the petitioner is ready and willing

to make the payment of the overdue amount. With this, the

learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking interim stay of the

action taken by the secured creditor under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities

Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

4. It is seen from the prayer clause made by the petitioner

that the petitioner is virtually challenging the steps taken by the

secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, apart from seeking

instalments.

5. 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), the writ

petition challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank under

the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable before this Court. The

petitioner has alternative and most efficacious remedy in that

regard.

6. So far as grant of instalments for payment of overdue

amount is concerned, what is sought by the petitioner is

regularisation of loan account which is the sole prerogative of the

creditor. This Court cannot compel the respondents to regularise

the loan account by granting instalments. The petitioner was

already having the facility of repayment of loan by instalments

which is not availed by the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merits

and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                 A.M.BADAR

ajt                                                JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:



EXHIBIT P1              TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND

RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION