Thilakarajan.K.P vs South Indian Bank Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 6710 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. 16305 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          THILAKARAJAN.K.P.,
          AGED 49 YEARS
          S/O.NAROTH KUMARAN, PARTNER, M/S.TEEYEM SAND &
          BRICKS, KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, THRIPANGOTTUR,
          THUVAKKUNNU.P.O., KANNUR.,
          PIN - 670693

          BY ADVS.     RAPHEEQUE C K
                       SHINOJ.K.N(K/902/2002)
                       K.RAJEEV(R-136)
                       K.B.NIDHINKUMAR(K/160/2010)


RESPONDENT:

          SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,
          REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, DOOR NO.4/110-K, K.V.R
          TOWER,OPP.LIC OFFICE, PAMPAN MADHAVAN ROAD,TALAP,
          KANNUR. (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER),
          PIN - 670002

          BY ADVS.     MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
                       P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
                       REENA THOMAS
                       NIGI GEORGE

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.16305/2023

                                       -:2:-




                       Dated this the 20th day of June,2023

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the

respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the

outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments

and regularise the loan account.

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

financial assistance from the respondent - Bank - by

creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond

his control, he could not pay the instalments on time.

The respondent has initiated proceedings against the

secured asset under the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (in short, 'Act'). The petitioner is

prepared to pay off the entire loan account in

instalments fixed by this Court. Hence, the writ

petition.

W.P.(C)No.16305/2023

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit,

inter alia, contending that the writ petition is not

maintainable, in view of the law declared by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner had availed

two loans; one in his individual capacity and another as

a partner of a firm. As on today, the outstanding

liability comes to Rs.1,95,08,039.37. The respondent is

not willing to permit the petitioner to pay the above

amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition may

be dismissed.

4. Heard; Sri. K.Rajeev, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohan Jacob

George, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted

a proposal before the respondent - bank to avail the W.P.(C)No.16305/2023

One Time Settlement Scheme[OTS]. The petitioner

would be satisfied, if the proposal is considered.

6. 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

respondent is not willing to provide any instalment

facility to the petitioner, I am of the definite view that

there are no extra-ordinary circumstances to entertain

the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution W.P.(C)No.16305/2023

of India. However, taking into account that a proposal

for OTS is pending, I direct the respondent to consider

the same in accordance with law.

Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of by

directing the respondent to consider the proposal

submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law

and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment, after affording the

petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If the

respondent rejects the proposal, the petitioner would

be at liberty to exhaust his statutory remedies.

Sd/-

                                   C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/20.06.23                                       //True copy//

                                                   P.A.To Judge
 W.P.(C)No.16305/2023






                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT - P1        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.04.2022
                    ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT - P2           TRUE   COPY  OF  THE   ACCOUNT  STATEMENTS

EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS OF EMIS AND OTHER PAYMENTS

EXHIBIT - P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL