Anil P Menon vs Axis Bank Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 8856 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
         MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
                             WP(C) NO. 26447 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

     1        ANIL P MENON,
              AGED 53 YEARS
              S/O. PADMANABHA MENON,
              KUZHOOR P.O., KAKKULLSSERY,
              KUZHOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680734
     2        MINI C,
              AGED 41 YEARS
              W/O. ANIL P MENON,
              MADHURAYIL VEEDU, KUZHOOR P.O.,
              KAKKULLSSERY, KUZHOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680734
              BY ADVS.
              SHABU SREEDHARAN
              S.DHEERENDRAKUMAR

RESPONDENT:

              AXIS BANK LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
              RETAIL ASSETS LTD., CHICAGO PLAZA,
              RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
              BY ADV MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.26447 of 2023
                                   2




                             C. S. DIAS, J.
                 -------------------------
                       W.P.(C.) No.26447 of 2023
                 -------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of August, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3

notice issued by the respondent.

2. The petitioners' case is that, the first

petitioner had availed financial assistance from

the respondent bank for his business purpose.

The second petitioner is the wife of the first

petitioner, and is the guarantor of the loan. Due

to Covid-19 pandemic and severe set back to the

petitioners' business, they could not pay the

instalments on time. The bank has proceeded

against the secured asset under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act WPC No.26447 of 2023

(in short, 'Act') and is threatening to take

physical possession of the property. The

petitioners had filed W.P.(C.) No.9558/2023

before this Court, which was disposed of by

Ext.P2 judgment, permitting the petitioners to

approach the respondent with a proposal to avail

the benefit of the One Time Settlement (OTS)

Scheme. It is learnt that the respondent has

rejected the said proposal. The respondent has

issued Ext.P3 notice to take physical possession

of the property. The petitioners have approached

the bank and submitted an offer to pay Rs.65/-

lakh. The secured asset has a market value of

Rs.1.5/- crore. The petitioners are not willful

defaulters. Hence, Ext.P3 may be quashed.

3. Heard; Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, the learned

Counsel appearing for the petitioners and

Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel

appearing for the respondent.

WPC No.26447 of 2023

4. Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, on instructions,

submitted that the petitioners had earlier

approached this Court in 2017 and 2019. Despite

this Court granting instalment facility to the

petitioners, they did not avail the benefit.

Thereafter, the petitioners had filed S.A.

No.308/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,

Ernakulam (in short, 'Tribunal') challenging the

recovery proceedings. As there was no sitting

before the Tribunal, the petitioners filed O.P.

(DRT.) No.240/2021 before this Court, which was

disposed of by permitting the petitioners to pay

the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly

instalments. The petitioners defaulted in the

payment. Thereafter, the petitioners approached

this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.9558/2023, which

was disposed of Ext.P2 judgment, permitting the

petitioners to submit a proposal to avail the OTS

facility. The said proposal has been rejected by WPC No.26447 of 2023

the bank. The bank has already taken physical

possession of the property. There is no bonafides

in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition may

be dismissed.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian

Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023

LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of

earlier judicial pronouncements rendered under

the Act, has categorically declared that High

Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary

circumstances, interfere with proceedings

initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Having considered the pleadings and

materials on record, appreciating the rival

submissions made across the Bar, and the fact

that the respondent has already taken physical

possession of the secured asset, I do not find any

extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ WPC No.26447 of 2023

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioners

to work out their statutory remedies, in

accordance with law.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed,

without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to

workout their statutory remedies, in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/14-08 WPC No.26447 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26447/2023

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FOR OTS DATED 13.3.2023 EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.

9558/2023 DATED 20.3.2023 EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT-P3(A) THE TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT-P3 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE