Shajahan vs The South Indian Bank Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 6107 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 18528 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

            SHAJAHAN
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, THOLIYANIKARA HOUSE, ANAPPARA,
            KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645

            BY ADVS.
            SHAHIM BIN AZIZ
            SALMAN FARIS



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
            REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MYLAPRA BRANCH,
            SACRED HEART CHURCH BUILDING, PALLIPADI JUNCTION,
            MYLAPRA P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689671

    2       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
            THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
            MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE- THIRUVALLA, 2ND FLOOR, TMJ
            COMPLEX, M.C. ROAD, RAMANCHIRA,MUTHOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA,
            PIN - 689107

            SRI.P.A.ASUGUSTINE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18528 OF 2023
                                2

                          JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 notice

issued by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of

the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

(in short, 'Act') as against the secured asset of the

petitioner.

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

chitti loan from the 1st respondent bank. Due to

unforeseen circumstances, he could not remit the

installments on time. The respondents are now hastily

proceeding against his immovable property. He needs a

breathing time to pay off the loan amount in

installments. Hence the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri. Shahim Bin Aziz, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.A.Augustine, the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Sri.P.A.Augustine, on instructions, submitted that

as the petitioner had availed an agricultural loan from WP(C) NO. 18528 OF 2023

the respondents, which has to be renewed year to year.

Therefore, there is no question of granting the

petitioner any installment facility. Nevertheless, it would

be up to the petitioner to approach the bank and submit

a representation to avail the One Time Settlement

Scheme. Further Ext.P1 is only a notice issued under

Section 13(2) issued under the Act. Therefore, the

petitioner may be relegated to exhaust his statutory

remedy.

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

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

WP(C) NO. 18528 OF 2023

6. Having considered the pleadings and materials

on record and taking note of the submission made by

the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I do

not find any extra ordinary circumstances to entertain

the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

India. Nevertheless, it would be up to the petitioner to

either approach the bank or exhaust his statutory

remedies, in accordance with law.

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 rkc/09.06.23 WP(C) NO. 18528 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18528/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFEASI ACT