Kerala High Court
Praveen Kumar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 21 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3563 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN NAIR
T.C 1014/99/4, MANNARAKANAN VATTIYURKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013.
BY ADV RAVI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
THYCAUD BRANCH GEETH TOWER, THYCAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2 BRANCH MANAGER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
THYCAUD BRANCH, GEETH TOWER, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL SHANKAR A
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.3563/2024
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings
initiated by the 1st respondent-Bank and seeks to direct the
2nd respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P1 notice.
2. The petitioner states that he was granted an
Overdraft facility by the Bank for an amount of ₹24 lakhs in
the year 2010. The Overdraft facility was extended from time
to time till the year 2022 enhancing the amount to ₹60 lakhs.
The petitioner was also granted an additional loan of ₹16
lakhs during the Covid-19 pandemic period.
3. According to the petitioner, there was some
default in maintaining the loan account and hence the
account was declared as NPA. The overdue amount payable
by the petitioner is only ₹12 lakhs. However, the Bank has
invoked proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and has issued Ext.P1
possession notice dated 19.11.2022.
4. The petitioner would urge that the coercive action
taken by the respondents is illegal. The petitioner is ready to
pay the overdue amount in instalments. Classification of the
account as NPA and taking possession of the residential
property of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on
behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition.
On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the
petitioner has miserably failed to maintain the loan account.
The repeated requests made by the officers of the Bank did
not yield any result. Consequently, as per the norms
prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner's loan
account was declared as NPA. The Bank is proceeding
strictly adhering to the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. A writ petition is not
maintainable against Ext.P1 proceedings.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondents.
7. Ext.P1 possession notice would indicate that the
dues payable by the petitioner is exceeding ₹81,61,985/-.
Ext.P1 has been issued under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Against Ext.P1,
the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal.
8. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the
Hon'ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be
entertained against the proceedings initiated under the
SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute
provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.
9. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State
Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784],
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would
lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view
of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
10. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756]
declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under
the Securitisation Act.
11. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen
Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that
when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances.
12. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and
others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ
petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation
Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an
effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate
the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of
law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ
petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/13.05.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3563/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 19.11.2022.
