Abdul Junais vs Authorized Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 6797 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. 39723 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

         ABDUL JUNAIS, AGED 39 YEARS
         SON OF MOIDEEN THARAMMAL, THARAMMAL HOUSE,
         MATHUVALLUR P.O., KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM
         DISTRICT,, PIN - 673638

         BY ADV RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.G.


RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         CANARA BANK, KONDOTTY BRANCH, MALAPPURAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 676505

         SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, CANARA BANK



    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 39723 OF 2022
                                 :: 2 ::



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of June 2023

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

respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the

outstanding amount in instalments and regularize the

loan account.

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

financial assistance from the respondent by creating an

equitable mortgage. However, due to reasons beyond

his control, he was unable to pay the instalments on

time. The Bank has now proceeded against the

property of the petitioner under the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (in short, 'Act'). This Court by

Ext.P1 judgment, this Court had dismissed W.P.

(C)No.29565/21 for non-compliance of the interim order

and had relegated the petitioner to exhaust his

statutory remedies. Notwithstanding the dismissal of

the earlier writ petition, the petitioner is prepared to WP(C) NO. 39723 OF 2022 :: 3 ::

pay the outstanding amount in instalments. Hence, the

writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Radhakrishna Pillai, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions,

submitted that, earlier the petitioner had filed writ

petitions, which were all dismissed for non-compliance

of the directions. Presently, the petitioner and the

respondent - bank have independently initiated

proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Therefore, the present writ petition is unwarranted and

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 rendered under the Act, has

categorically declared that High Courts shall not, WP(C) NO. 39723 OF 2022 :: 4 ::

unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with

proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings

filed 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 S.A.No.90/23 and the respondent has filed

O.A.No.250/22 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal I,

Ernakulam, 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.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prosecute and

defend the proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes WP(C) NO. 39723 OF 2022 :: 5 ::

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39723/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP.(C) NO.29565/2021 DATED 26/09/2022

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE RECEIPT DATED 03.10.2022

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 IN CRL.M.P.NO.2838/2022 OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT.MANJERI

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE ADV.COMMISSIONER

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 15-2-2023