Mookada Muhammed Anaz vs Icici Bank Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 9309 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. 26515 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

            MOOKADA MUHAMMED ANAZ
            AGED 56 YEARS
            S/O. MOOKADA OUKKAR VEERAN, KACHERY DESHOM NEAR KACHERY
            ANGANVADY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673502., PIN - 673502

            BY ADVS.
            C.BHASKARAN
            ARJUN C BHASKAR
            ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE



RESPONDENTS:

    1       ICICI BANK LTD
            REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, VADAKARA,
            CALICUT, PIN - 673502

    2       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
            ICICI BANK LTD, VADAKARA, CALICUT,
            PIN - 673502


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI PRADEESH CHACKO




     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.26515 OF 2023
                              2




           Dated this the 25th day of August, 2023

                         JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents

to permit the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in

equated monthly instalments and regularise the loan

account

2. The petitioner's case is that, he had availed

financial assistance from the first respondent- Bank- by

creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.

Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the

instalments on time. The respondents have initiated

proceedings under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

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

and are threatening to take physical possession of the

secured asset. The petitioner is ready to pay the WP(C) NO.26515 OF 2023

overdue amount in instalments and regularise the loan

account. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.C.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeesh Chacko,

the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4 Sri.Pradeesh Chacko, on instructions, submitted

that the outstanding amount as on today is Rs.

52,00,709/-. The petitioner has not paid any instalments

since 2020. The respondents are not willing to extend

any installment facility to the petitioner. 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 extraordinary circumstances, interfere with

proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings WP(C) NO.26515 OF 2023

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 respondents, 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 petitioner to work out his statutory remedies as

provided under the Act.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his

remedies, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm25/8/2023 WP(C) NO.26515 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26515/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 07/04/2021