Deeju Divakar vs Authorised Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 9307 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 20487 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

    1       DEEJU DIVAKAR,
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O K. DIVAKAR, VADAKKEPURA HOUSE, VARODE, KOTTAYI P O,
            ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISITRICT-678572.

    2       SUNITHA R.,
            AGED 46 YEARS
            VADAKKEPURA HOUSE, VARODE, KOTTAYI P O, ALATHUR TALUK,
            PALAKKAD DISITRICT-678572.

            BY ADV BABY MATHEW



RESPONDENT:

            AUTHORISED OFFICER,
            CANARA BANK, KOTTAYI BRANCH, KARTHIYAYANI VIHAR,
            KOTTAYI P O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678572.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.20487 OF 2023
                              2




           Dated this the 25th day of August, 2023

                         JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the

respondent to provide the petitioners a detailed account

statement of the loan account.

2. The petitioners case is that, they had availed a

MSME loan from the respondent- Bank- in the year,

2017 for an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-, by creating an

equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Due to

reasons beyond their control, they could not pay the

instalments on time. The respondent has initiated

proceedings under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI Act')

and is threatening to take physical possession of the

property. The petitioners have not received the detailed

statement of account and the respondent is bound to WP(C) NO.20487 OF 2023

issue the same to the petitioners. The petitioners are

willing to pay the outstanding amount in instalments and

close the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Baby Mathew, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Gopikrishnan

Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

4 Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions,

submitted that the outstanding amount, as on today is

Rs. 9,45,000/-. The respondent is not willing to extend

any installment facility to the petitioners, in view of the

antecedents of the petitioners. 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 WP(C) NO.20487 OF 2023

in extraordinary circumstances, interfere with

proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Having considered the pleadings and materials

on record, and taking note of the submission made by

the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am

not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it would be up

to the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies as

provided under the Act.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their

remedies, in accordance with law.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm25/8/2023 WP(C) NO.20487 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20487/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 19/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 03/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT