Sheenamol Joseph vs Canara Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 7808 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 23570 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

    1     SHEENAMOL JOSEPH,
          AGED 43 YEARS
          W/O. ABU JOHN , THEVARMADOM , PIRAROOR P.O., KALADY
          PIN: 683574, NOW RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 12, STREET 41,
          ALKHAN, ALSHARJAH, UAE, (REPRESENTED BY SIMON PETER,
          POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.
          GANGADHARAN KIDAVU , 2B GOKULAM AMEYA APARTMENT, SOUTH
          JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682025

    2     ABU JOHN
          AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O. JOHN VARGHEESE, THEVARMADOM ,PIRAROOR P.O., KALADY
          - 683574, NOW RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 12, STREET 41,
          ALKHAN, ALSHARJAH, UAE, (REPRESENTED BY SIMON PETER,
          POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.
          GANGADHARAN KIDAVU , 2B GOKULAM AMEYA APARTMENT, SOUTH
          JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682025

          BY ADVS.
          SHAKTHI PRAKASH
          MUHASIN K.M.



RESPONDENT/S:

          CANARA BANK,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KALADY BRANCH, H
          TO M BUILDING, M.C.ROAD, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
          683574


OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23570 OF 2023
                                2

                           JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to

permit the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount in

installments and regularise the loan account.

2. The petitioners' case is that they had availed

financial assistance from the respondent bank, by

creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.

Due to reasons beyond their control and the Covid-19

pandemic, they could not pay the installments on time.

The bank has now proceeded against the secured asset

under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

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

possession of the secured asset. The petitioners are

willing to pay the overdue amount in installments and

regularise the loan account. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Heard; Sri. Shakthi Praksh, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Gopikrishnan

Nambiar, the learned Counsel appearing for the WP(C) NO. 23570 OF 2023

respondents.

4. Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions,

submitted that this Court by Ext.P2 judgment had

permitted the petitioners to pay the overdue amount in

ten equated monthly installments commencing from

26.09.2022. But the petitioners did not avail the benefit

of the said judgment. Now the respondent has filed OA

No.562/2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,

Ernakulam, which is pending consideration. Therefore,

the respondent is not willing to permit the petitioners to

pay the outstanding amount in installments. 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, 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 WP(C) NO. 23570 OF 2023

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 that the

respondent is not willing to extent any installment

facility to the petitioners, I do not find any circumstances

warranting exercise of the discretionary powers of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it is 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 work out their

remedies in accordance with law.

sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

rkc/19.07.23 WP(C) NO. 23570 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23570/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO. 27159/2022

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT DATED 21.10.2022

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2023