Jaseela P.P vs South Indian Bank
2022 Latest Caselaw 9530 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 27479 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          JASEELA P.P
          AGED 42 YEARS
          AMINA MANZIL, ILLAM MOOLA, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR
          DESOM, P.O. KANNUR, PIN - 670702

          BY ADVS.
          JITHIN S SUNDARAN
          K.V.PAVITHRAN
          JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     SOUTH INDIAN BANK
          REP. BY ITS MANAGER & PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE BANK,
          THE MANAGER, MATTANNUR BRANCH, P.O. MATTANNUR, PIN -
          670702

    2     AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670702

          BY ADV SUNIL SHANKER


OTHER PRESENT:

              ADV. S. EASWARAN (SC)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.27479/2022                         -2-

                                      JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging proceedings initiated under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). In respect of the very same loan

transaction the husband of the petitioner had filed a writ petition and had obtained Ext.P4

judgment through which he was permitted to clear the liability in 12 equal monthly

installments. That judgment was in the month of February, 2021. The husband of the

petitioner did not clear the liability. The claim of the present petitioner is that the marriage

of her son is scheduled to be held in the property which is subject matter of mortgage with

the bank in month of December, 2022 and the proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the

month of January, 2023.

2. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent bank states that this writ

petition is clearly not maintainable and is an abuse of process of court. It is submitted that

eventhough the husband of the petitioner had defaulted in paying the amount due as

directed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment, he was informed that the bank will consider one

time settlement. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner was scheduled to meet

the bank officials and in the meantime the petitioner had moved this court with the present

writ petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent bank, I am clearly of the view that there is considerable

merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for respondents that this writ petition

is not maintainable. The writ petition will stand dismissed, making it clear that it is always

open to the petitioner or her husband to approach the bank for one time settlement.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27479/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.11.2020

ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT

ExhibitP3 TRUE COPY OF W.P.(C) NO.2868/21

ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.2.2021

ExhibitP5 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2021 TO 11.8.2022