Honey Syamsunder vs The Authorized Officer/Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6704 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
         TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                           WP(C) NO. 21776 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

     1      HONEY SYAMSUNDER
            AGED 54 YEARS
            W/O. SYAMSUNDER, 43/2151A,
            SAMRIDHI HOUSE, SRM ROAD,
            ERNAKULAM NORTH-682 016.
     2      SYAMSUNDER A.
            AGED 59 YEARS
            S/O. AYYAPPAN NAIR, 43/2151A,
            SAMRIDHI HOUSE, SRM ROAD,
            ERNAKULAM NORTH-682 016.
            BY ADVS.
            SARATHKUMAR TS
            JISMEMOL JAMES(K/630/2020)
            SHYAM KUMAR M.P(K/1543/2020)
            RONY V.P.(D/4191/2021)
            SALU ANNA LAWRANCE(K/000895/2018)
            PRASOON.K.P(K/000448/2023)
            SREEKANTH M.(D/40/2022)
            ACHANKUNJU P.C(K/1096/2018)

RESPONDENTS:

     1      THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER
            PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, RECOVERY DEPARTMENT,
            CIRCLE OFFICE, 40/1461, MARKET ROAD,
            II FLOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 011.
     2      THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
            KADAVANTHARA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER-682 011.
            BY ADV C.AJITH KUMAR

     THIS   WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.21776 of 2021
                                   2




                             C.S.DIAS, J.
                -------------------------
                       W.P.(C.) No.21776 of 2021
                -------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of June, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the

respondents to permit the petitioners to pay the

overdue amount in instalments.

2. The petitioners' case is that, they had

availed financial assistance from the second

respondent bank in the year 2017 by creating

an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond

their control, they could not pay the instalments

on time. The respondents have now proceeded

against the secured asset under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act

(in short, 'Act'). The petitioners are now willing WPC No.21776 of 2021

to pay off the overdue amount in instalments.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Josy Antony, the learned

Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.

Ajith Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for

the respondents.

4. Sri.C.Ajith Kumar, on instructions,

submitted that even though the writ petition

was filed on 07.10.2021, the bank has not

proceeded further with the recovery

proceedings. The bank had given the

petitioners three suggestions to the proposal

submitted by the petitioner for One Time

Settlement. But the same were not accepted by

the petitioners. Now the bank has filed an

original application before the Debt Recovery

Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The bank is no longer

willing to permit the petitioners to pay the WPC No.21776 of 2021

overdue amount in instalments. Hence, the

petitioners may be relegated to exhaust their

statutory remedies.

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 respondents have already filed original WPC No.21776 of 2021

application before the Tribunal, I do not find any

extraordinary circumstances to entertain the

writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to 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 SKP/20-06 WPC No.21776 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21776/2021

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 9.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.4.2021 UNDER 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE GST FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20 EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS IN THE PETITIONER'S FIRM FOR 2019-2020.

ANNEXURE A1 TRU COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 IN WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO.21776/2021 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE