Sunitha Manoj Pai vs Standard Chartered Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 9712 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7394 OF 2021(Y)


PETITIONERS:

      1        SUNITHA MANOJ PAI
               AGED 49 YEARS
               W/O. LATE MANOJ V. PAI, HOUSE NO.64/216, NNRA - 42,
               SREENIKETH, NIVYA NAGAR, KALOOR P. O., ERNAKULAM -
               682317.

      2        PAI AND CO.
               AGED 55 YEARS
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DINESH V. PAI,
               S/O. LATE S. V. PAI, PAICO BUILDINGS, DOOR NO.40/4174
               B, JEW STREET, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682035.

               BY ADV. SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH

RESPONDENT:

               STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
               REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, HDFC HOUSE, POST
               BOX NO.1700, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, PERUMANUR P. O.,
               ERNAKULAM - 682 015.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7394 OF 2021(Y)

                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By drawing my

attention to the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI

Act, so also the account statement, the learned counsel argued that

there are no pre-defaults in remitting the EMI and therefore, action on

the part of the respondent in declaring the account as non-performing

asset is illegal. He further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has

already ordered that the accounts which are not declared as non-

performing asset on 31.08.2020 could not be declared so

subsequently during the national lockdown.

2. I have considered the submissions so advanced.

3. The petition is challenging the action taken by the secured

creditor under the SARFAESI Act. What is impugned in the instant

petition is a notice at Ext.P3 which was issued under Section 13(2) of

the SARFAESI Act. In the matter of Authorized Officer, SBT &

Another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in ((2018) 3 SCC 85) DB, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the petition challenging

the action under the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable in the wake of

alternate remedy available to the petitioners.

4. So far as issue of regularization of loan account is WP(C).No.7394 OF 2021(Y)

concerned, the same is exclusively in province of the financial

institution granting loan. Respondent herein is the Standard Chartered

Bank. The petitioners will have to approach the said Bank for seeking

the relief or regularization of their home loan. The respondent does

not seem to be an authority of the State as per Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

In this view of the matter, the petition is rejected. Needless to

mention that the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate

Forum, challenging the action under the SARFAESI Act.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.7394 OF 2021(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.06.2006 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT INFORMING THE LATE HUSBAND OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE LATE HUSBAND OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9.10.2020 UNDER S.13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE HOME LOAN ACCOUNT BEARING NO.43405048232 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2020 ISSUED BY FIRST PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER OF RESPONDENT BANK.