Smt. Bushara Aseez vs The Authorised Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 5903 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. 16463 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SMT. BUSHARA ASEEZ
          AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. ASEEZ THARAVATTATH,
          THARAVATTATH HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR P.O.,
          VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673541

          BY ADVS.      TERRY V.JAMES
                        ABRAHAM KOLLINAL
                        RAKHY BABY
                        SONY SOLOMON


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
          [UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF
          FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST
          ACT, 2002] SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE
          KOZHIKODE, 1ST FLOOR, HAPPY TOWERS, VAIKKOM MOHAMMED
          BASHEER ROAD, MANANCHIRA(PO), KOZHIKODE-., PIN -
          673001

    2     THE SENIOR MANAGER
          SOUTH INDIAN BANK, VATAKARA BRANCH, ARKAY BUILDING,
          NEAR HOP EDODI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-., PIN - 673101

    3     THE BRANCH MANAGER
          SOUTH INDIAN BANK, VATAKARA BRANCH, ARKAY BUILDING,
          NEAR HOP EDODI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-, PIN - 673101

          BY ADV. SUNIL SHANKER
                   SRI. P.A. AUGUSTINE

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.16463/2023

                                      -:2:-




                       Dated this the 24th day of May,2023

                             JUDGMENT

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

respondents to regularise the over draft facility that

was extended to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's case is that, she and her

husband had availed a term loan and an over draft

facility from the second respondent by creating an

equitable mortgage of their residential building. The

second respondent issued Ext P1 notice, classifying the

secured asset as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

Thereafter, the second respondent issued Ext P2 notice

recalling the loan. Later, the first respondent has

issued Ext P3 notice, demanding an amount of

Rs.22,68,086.51. Then, the petitioner filed W.P.

(C)No.12098/2023 before this Court, which was

disposed of by Ext P7 judgment, directing the W.P.(C)No.16463/2023

petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and

the respondents to consider the proposal of One-time

Settlement[OTS] submitted by the petitioner. But, the

second respondent by the impugned Ext P10 order, has

rejected the petitioner's request. Hence, the writ

petition.

3. Heard; Sri. Terry V. James, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.A.

Augustine, the learned standing counsel appearing for

the respondents.

4. Sri. P.A. Augustine submitted that the term

loan availed by the petitioner has been regularised.

However, the over draft facility cannot be regularised

under the OTS scheme, since the petitioner has to pay

off the amount on or before 31.05.2023.

5. In State Bank of India v. Aravindra

Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2022 KHC 7165], the Hon'ble W.P.(C)No.16463/2023

Supreme Court has categorically held that the High

Courts shall not extend the time period under the OTS

scheme in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

6. Having considered the pleadings and

materials on record and the law declared by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision, I

am not inclined to interfere with Ext P10 passed by the

second respondent.

Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hence,

dismissed.

Sd/-

                                      C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/24.05.23                                           //True copy//

                                                       P.A.To Judge
 W.P.(C)No.16463/2023






                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25.3.2021 ISSUED
                    BY    THE     3RD   RESPONDENT   TO    THE
                    PETITIONER/HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT P2             TRUE COPY OF RECALL NOTICE DATED 13.4.2021
                       SENT   BY  THE   3RD   RESPONDENT TO   THE
                       PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND

EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13.7.2021 SENT BY

THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT TO THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS. 13,000/-RS. 87,000/-, RS. 30,000/-, RS. 13,000/-, RS. 38,700/- AND RS. 24,800/- MADE BY THE PETITIONER/HUSBAND TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 15.3.2022 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF SALE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 12098/2023.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.4.2023 OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ISSUED THROUGH THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF TERM LOAN PASS SHEET OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK FOR THE PERIOD 6.11.2017 TO 30.4.2023.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.5.2023 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL