Kerala High Court
Sajeena.D vs State Bank Of India on 22 May, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJEENA.D., AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.NASEER, NAZEER MANZIL, BANGLAMUKKU,
NILAMEL KOLLAM-693015
2 ABDUL SAMAD.K., AGED 70 YEARS
SAJEENA MANZIL, BLOCK NO 147, MADATHARA.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-691541
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
(ERSTWHILE SBT), REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MADATHARA BRANCH, MADATHARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
691541
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3 SHAJI.A., S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, SAJEENA MANZIL, BLOCK
NO.147, MADATHARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691541
SRI.JAWHAR JOSE-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is stated to be the daughter of the second petitioner and it is conceded that the second petitioner is a guarantor of a loan facility availed of by the first petitioner's brother, who is the son of the second petitioner. It is also conceded before me that the original borrower had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4261/2019 seeking certain indulgence but that he has not complied with the directions in the judgment issued in the said writ petition. The petitioners say that the second petitioner is residing in the secured asset which is now sought to be proceeded against by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) and therefore that they are now willing to pay off the entire loan liability in a few instalments.
2. Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned standing counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that this writ petition is not maintainable and this Court should dismiss it with exemplary costs. He says that this writ petition is an abuse of process since the original borrower, who is none other than the brother of the WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019 3 first petitioner and the son of the second petitioner, is also residing in the same house and that this writ petition has been filed making it appear as if the petitioners are in confrontation with the said person. He says that on the earlier occasion when the original borrower had approached this Court, he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as an initial payment and to pay off the balance in instalments but that he did not comply with the same. Sri.Jawahar Jose, therefore, says that no further indulgence may be shown to the petitioners herein. After saying so, he, however, adds that if the petitioners can prove their bona fides by paying substantial amounts within a period of not more than two weeks, the bank may consider giving them some latitude, subject to the orders of this Court.
3. Sri.V.A.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that his clients concede to all these submissions made by Sri.Jawahar Jose and says that their request in this writ petition is only by way of complete indulgence from the Bank. He says that his clients will pay Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 07.06.2019 to show their bona fides and that if that is done, they may be permitted to pay off the balance outstanding in twelve equal monthly instalments.
4. In response to the above, Sri.Jawahar Jose submitted that WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019 4 if the petitioners pay Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 07.06.2019, they can be allowed to pay off the balance, along with all applicable charges and interest, in not more than ten equal monthly instalments.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioners to pay Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 07.06.2019; in which event, the bank will permit them to pay off the balance outstanding, along with all applicable charges and interest, in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.07.2019.
It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.
I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they will also be foreclosed WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019 5 from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
stu JUDGE
WP(C).No. 12744 of 2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER DATED 24.01.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.11235/2019
DATED 11.04.2019
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.