Kerala High Court
Sheela Lorance vs The Authorised Officer on 21 December, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41137 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SHEELA LORANCE,
AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O LORANCE ALOOR (LATE),
ALOOR HOUSE, THAIKKAD (P.O),
GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR (DT), PIN - 680104.
2 SHIVAS LORENCE,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O LORANCE ALOOR (LATE),
ALOOR HOUSE, THAIKKAD (P.O),
GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR (DT) ., PIN - 680104.
3 SHINCE LORANCE,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O LORANCE ALOOR (LATE),
ALOOR HOUSE, THAIKKAD (P.O),
GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR (DT) ., PIN - 680104.
BY ADV. SHRI.MRINUAAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
KERALA BANK, HEAD OFFICE BRANCH,
KOVILAKATHUPADAM THRISSUR, PIN - 680022.
2 THE MANAGER,
KERALA BANK, HEAD OFFICE BRANCH,
KOVILAKATHUPADAM THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
BY ADV. SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41137/2023
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.41137 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The 1st petitioner's husband died on 05.04.2005 in
UAE. The 1st petitioner is unemployed. The 2nd petitioner is
her son. The 1st petitioner decided to start a Car Wash
Centre near Guruvayur Railway Station in the year 2011.
The 2nd respondent-Bank advanced a mortgage loan on the
security of 9.712 Cents of land with a building thereon,
provided by the petitioners. On 05.08.2014, ₹1 Crore was
sanctioned as loan to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners were prompt in repayment of loan
from July, 2014 to October, 2017. The Hernia disease of the
1st petitioner, the Kerala Floods, Demonetisation, Covid-19
pandemic and construction of Guruvayur ROB, ruined the
business of the petitioners. The 2 nd respondent initiated
proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 and an Advocate Commissioner appointed at the
instance of the 2nd respondent took possession of the land on
which Car Wash building situated.
3. The petitioners submitted a letter dated
13.11.2023 offering for a One Time Settlement of the loan
account paying ₹98,20,000/-. However, the respondents are
not positively responding, contend the petitioners. The
petitioners therefore seek to direct the respondents to
consider Ext.P3 and P3(a) OTS proposals fixing an
affordable amount for One Time Settlement and to sell the
land to a third party within a period of one year and till then
the steps taken pursuant to Ext.P2 notice may be kept in
abeyance.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The
Standing Counsel argued that the petitioners have
approached this Court earlier and this Court in the year 2017
permitted the petitioners to remit the outstanding amount in
20 equal monthly instalments. The total outstanding amount
payable by the petitioners now is ₹2,44,75,674/-. If the
petitioners have any grievance against the proceedings
initiated by the Bank, invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation Act the petitioners have to approach the
competent Debts Recovery Tribunal. A writ petition is not
maintainable in the facts of the case, contended the Standing
Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2.
6. The petitioners had availed a loan of ₹1 Crore in
the year 2014 for establishing a Car Wash Centre. The
petitioners could not maintain the loan account properly. The
present outstanding payable by the petitioners is
₹2,44,75,674/-. The petitioners are before this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings initiated under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and seek to settle
the loan account through a One Time Settlement. The
petitioners had approached this Court earlier filing W.P.(C)
No.13157/2017 and this Court directed that the Bank shall
grant 20 instalments for the payment of the defaulted arrears
in the loan account of the petitioners. In spite of the said
direction, the petitioners have committed defaults and are
before this Court again.
7. It is settled proposition that High Courts should
not, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, interfere in the recovery proceedings
initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, except in exceptional circumstances. If the petitioners
have any grievance relating to coercive proceedings initiated
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, they
have to approach the competent Tribunal as contemplated
under the Act, 2002. As far as One Time Settlement request
of the petitioners is concerned, One Time Settlement being
within the realm of contracts, this Court cannot give any
mandatory direction to the Bank to extend the benefit of One
Time Settlement to the petitioners.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is
dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners
may approach the Bank for any possible One Time
Settlement in the matter.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/20.12.2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41137/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IMMIGRATION CLEARANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 13/04/2005
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
NOTICE DATED 03/06/2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 13/11/2023
FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 29/11/2023
FOR SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY TO A
THIRD PARTY
Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
SR
