Sharafudheen vs The South Indian Bank Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 7391 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
            TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945
                             WP(C) NO. 21060 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

     1        SHARAFUDHEEN,
              AGED 34 YEARS
              S/O (LATE) MUHAMMED HANEEFA,
              ANAKKARU VEEDU, KUMILY,
              LABBAKANDAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685509
              BY ADVS.
              MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
              ANJALI ANIL A.
              NANDINI PRAVEEN
              ASHISH ANTONY FRANCIS

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
              HEAD OFFICE : SIB HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS,
              THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
     2        THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
              SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE,
              COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
     3        THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
              KUMILY BRANCH, NAMPOZHIL BUILDING,
              NEAR KSRTC BUS STATION, K.K ROAD, KUMILY, PIN - 685509
              BY ADVS.
              SRI MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
              SUNIL SHANKER

     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.21060 of 2023
                                       2




                              C.S.DIAS, J.
                -------------------------
                  W.P.(C.) No.21060 of 2023
                -------------------------
         Dated this the 27th day of June, 2023

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3

notice issued by the respondents.

2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the

rightful owner of a property belonging to his

mother and his brothers. The petitioner along

with other owners have made personal

investments in the property. The petitioner's

father had availed financial assistance from the

Kerala Financial Corporation (in short, 'KFC').

Thereafter, the respondent bank took over the

Kerala Financial Corporation. Due to

unprecedented floods and the Covid-19

pandemic, the petitioner and co-owners could not WPC No.21060 of 2023

repay the loan amount. The bank has now

proceeded against the secured asset under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act

(in short, 'Act'). Now, an Advocate Commissioner

has issued Ext.P3 notice under Section 14 of the

SARFAESI Act, which is unjustifiable and illegal.

3. Heard; Smt.Maitreyi Sachchidananda

Hedge, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Sri.Mohan Jacob George, on instructions,

submitted that the petitioner had given an

undertaking before the third respondent to pay

off the outstanding amount on or before

30.06.2023 and close the loan account. Thus,

after making a solemn undertakings, it is

unjustifiable on the part of the petitioner to

approach this Court under Article 226 of the WPC No.21060 of 2023

Constitution of India.

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 the High Courts shall not, unless in

extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with

proceedings initiated under the Act, in a writ

proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

6. Having considered the pleadings and

materials on record and taking note of the fact

that Ext.P3 notice is issued under Section 14 of

the Act and the petitioner has an alternative

statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, I

am not inclined to entertain the writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to WPC No.21060 of 2023

invoke his statutory remedies under the Act.

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 SKP/27-06 WPC No.21060 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21060/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM OF THE RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 11.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM OF THE RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.05.2023 ISSUED BY ADV. SUDHA P. NARANATT, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER PERTAINING TO M.C. NO. 151/2023 INITIATED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE SARFEASI ACT EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- (TEN LAKH RUPEES ONLY) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE