Maruvan vs 1) Bank Of Baroda
2023 Latest Caselaw 5890 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 12999 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          MARUVAN
          AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN,
          PUTHANCHIRAKUNNIL NOOLPUZHA
          WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592

          BY ADVS.
          CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE
          AJITH VILLY GEORGE
          GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE



RESPONDENT:

          BANK OF BARODA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER ,
          MIDHUN, T K H ARCADE, CHUNGAM ,
          SULTHAN BATHERY , WAYANAD ,
          SULTAN BATHERY, PIN - 673592

          BY ADV K.ANAND, [SC, BANK OF BARODA]
             SRI. LEO GEORGE




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12999 OF 2023            2




               Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

                          JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to

afford the petitioner an opportunity to repay the loan

amount in 25 installments.

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

commercial vehicle loan from the respondent for an

amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Due to the circumstances

beyond his control, he could not repay the loan amount.

An Advocate Commissioner has issued Ext.P1 notice to

take physical possession of the vehicle. The action of the

respondent is high-handed and arbitrary. Hence, the writ

petition.

3. Heard: Sri.Cherian Mathew Poothicote, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Leo

George, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

4. Sri. Leo George, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the

petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as W.P.

(C)No.21647/2022, which was disposed of by this Court

permitting the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in

ten equated monthly installments. The petitioner has not

complied with the directions passed in the judgment.

Without revealing the above fact, the present writ

petition is filed. Hence, the writ petition 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, has categorically held that the 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. In the case on hand, undisputably the petitioner

has approached this Court and was granted the benefit to

pay off the loan amount in ten equated monthly

installments. The petitioner has not availed the said

benefit. I do not find any extraordinary circumstances

warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

In the above conspectus, I am not inclined to

entertain the writ petition. Without prejudice to the right

of the petitioner to workout his remedies in accordance

with law, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm24/5/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12999/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

ExhibitP1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATES COMMISSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 21/03/2023