Chandrasekharan.M.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10103 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chandrasekharan.M.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 5 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                 WP(C) NO. 9275 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         CHANDRASEKHARAN M.G.,
         AGED 48 YEARS,
         'SREEVAROSJTA,
         MANGAVAYAL, PUTHOORVAYAL P.O.,
         KALPETTA, PIN - 673527

         BY ADVS.
         ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
         T.K.SANDEEP
         ARJUN SREEDHAR
         ALEX ABRAHAM
         SWETHA R.
         HARIKRISHNAN P.B.
         GOWRI MENON


RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KALAI ROAD, CHALAPURAM P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002
    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (SARFAESI),
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
         WAYANAD,
         KALPETTA NORTH, PIN - 673112

         BY ADV.ATHUL SHAJI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.9275/2024
                                     :2:



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction, to quash all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 under SARFAESI Act.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the 1st respondent-Bank to consider Ext.P2 representation letter and grant the petitioner reasonable time to repay the entire loan amount under One Time Settlement Scheme.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents as per Ext.P1 notice till the disposal of Ext.P2 representation letter.

iv) Grant such other reliefs as are deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents.

3. It is evident from the pleadings and arguments

that the Cash Credit facility taken by the petitioner was of

₹1,50,000/- in the year 2004. Standing Counsel

representing the Bank would submit that the amount has

grown up to more than ₹18 lakhs as on date.

4. Taking into consideration the facts of the case,

I am of the view that the petitioner has approached this

Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 proceeding. Ext.P1

proceeding has been initiated under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002. It is settled law that against

any measures taken by the Bank under the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner has to approach

the Competent Tribunal under Section 17 of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. A writ petition

is therefore not maintainable.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9275/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.01.2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2024.