Babu Caterers vs City Union Bank Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 7813 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022/7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 20168 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1    M/S. BABU CATERERS REPRESENTED BY
         ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
         K.P.NISHAD, AGED 53 YEARS,
         S/O.LATE K.P.BABU, 2ND FLOOR,
         NV TOWER, KALLAI P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.

    2    K.P.NISHAD, AGED 53 YEARS,
         S/O. LATE K.P.BABU, PARAKKATT HOUSE,
         CHANDA ROAD, PETTA, FEROKE P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 631.

         BY ADVS.
         K.SANEESH KUMAR
         V.B.SANTHINI
RESPONDENTS:

    1    CITY UNION BANK REP. BY
         ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
         'NARAYANA' NO.24 B, GANDHI NAGAR,
         KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU- 612 001.

    2    THE CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         CITY UNION BANK, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
         17/1004, B6, GROUND FLOOR, THARIF ARCADE,
         PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 004.

         BY ADVS.
         THOMAS T.VARGHESE
         ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
         V.T.LITHA
         K.R.MONISHA

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.20168/2022
                                  :2 :




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging a

demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to

as the SARFAESI Act).

2. The petitioners had availed two cash credit facilities

from the first respondent Bank. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to regularise

the loan account and the Bank may be directed to consider

the proposal of the petitioner for regularising the loan

accounts of the petitioner.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent Bank submits that there is absolutely no cause

of action for the petitioner to approach this Court at this WP(C) No.20168/2022

stage, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as only a

demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act

has been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the

Bank will not be averse to considering any request for

regularising the loan accounts provided the petitioner is

willing to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the

Bank including compliance with the terms of sanction. It is

submitted that if the petitioner makes a suitable proposal to

the respondent Bank, the same can be considered by the

competent authority of the respondent Bank.

Taking note of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondent Bank, this writ petition will stand

disposed of directing the competent authority of the first

respondent to consider any proposal that may be submitted

by the petitioner for regularising the loan accounts. If such

proposal is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one

week from today, the competent authority shall take a

decision thereon and shall communicate the terms upon

which the loan accounts of the petitioner can be regularised. WP(C) No.20168/2022

If the petitioner complies the terms put forth by the Bank,

further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ncd/28.06.22 WP(C) No.20168/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20168/2022

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 DEMANDING TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2022.