Kerala High Court
Johney Roy vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 12 June, 2023
1
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41586 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 300/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
JOHNEY ROY,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. C.S. LUKOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
KANAKKARY. P.O., ETTUMANNOOR, KOTAYAM DISTRICT -
686632
BY ADVS.
M.NARENDRA KUMAR
B.RAJESH (KOTTAYAM)
HARSHADEV M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
KOTHANALLOOR BRANCH, THAYIL BUILDING, KOTHANALLOOR .
P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 632, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, PIN - 686632
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
REGENCY SQUARE, K. K ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM- 686001
BY ADVS.
SUNIL SHANKER
VIDYA GANGADHARAN
SANDHRA.S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
-----------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023 .
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to
regularise the housing loan account and Kisan Cash
Credit loan account of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's case is that he is an
agriculturist. He had availed three loans, namely, (i)
Kisan cash credit, (ii) home loan, and (iii) car loan, by
creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond
his control, he could not pay the instalments on time.
The respondents have initiated proceedings against the
secured asset under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
Security Interest Act (in short, 'Act'). The petitioner is
prepared to pay off the entire outstanding amount in
equated monthly instalments. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter
affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. The
first respondent has categorically pleaded that the loan
accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset on
24.3.2021 with effect from 22.1.2021. The first
respondent has already initiated proceedings under the
Act. The petitioner has filed Securitisation Application
No.300/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II,
Ernakulam, challenging the steps initiated under
Sec.13(4) of the Act. An Advocate Commissioner was
appointed to take physical possession of the property.
The Tribunal stayed coercive proceedings on condition
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-
on or before 1.9.2022. The petitioner failed to comply
with the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
OP(DRT) No.378/2022 before this Court to grant him
time till 30.9.2022 to comply with the conditional order.
This Court enlarged the time period till 30.9.2022. But,
the petitioner failed to deposit the above amount.
Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded against the
secured asset. The writ petition is devoid of any merits
and is hence liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard; Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil
Shanker, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
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 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.
6. Having considered the pleadings and materials
on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioner
has filed a securitization application before the Tribunal
and that he has failed to comply with the conditional
order of stay granted by the Tribunal, which was also
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
enlarged by this Court in OP(DRT) 378/2022, I do not
find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to
invoke remedies under the Act.
Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with
law, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
sks/12.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) No.41586 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41586/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2021 UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.10.2021
PURPORTEDLY UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE
SARFAESI ACT, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit3 TRUE COPY OF THE S.A. NO. 300 OF 2021 BEFORE
THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
Exhibit4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.07.2022 IN I.A.
NO. 1743/2022 IN S.A. NO. 300/2021 EXHIBIT -
P3
Exhibit5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2022 IN O.P.
(DRT) NO. 378 OF 2022
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 1 OF 2022 IN O.P.
(DRT) NO. 378 OF 2022
Exhibit7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2022 IN
EXHIBIT - P6
Exhibit8 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
01.10.2021 TO 23.11.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF RS.12,63,697.67
Exhibit9 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
01.10.2021 TO 23.11.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF RS.2,88,216.80
Exhibit10 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
01.10.2021 TO 23.11.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF RS.24,60,760.27
Exhibit11 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
01.10.2021 TO 23.11.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF RS.52,93,000.00
Exhibit12 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
01.10.2021 TO 23.11.2022 SHOWING THE PAYMENT
OF 3,16,923.74
