Kerala High Court
Liju Lalitha vs Federal Bank on 17 November, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/26TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37431 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 LIJU LALITHA
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O KARTHIKEYAN, LIJU BHAVAN ,
VELIYAM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691540
2 SREEJA S
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O LIJU LALITHA, LIJU BHAVAN,
VELIYAM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691540
BY ADVS.
R.SURAJ KUMAR
ANJANA R.S.
SUNITHA G.
FARZA N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 FEDERAL BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM DIVISION ,4TH FLOOR
FEDERAL TOWERS,STATUE,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER
FEDERAL BANK, POOYAPPALLY BRANCH
BUILDING NO 4/1115,
KARIKKATTU BUILDING, KOLLAM, PIN - 691537
BY SRI.POULOCHAN ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.37431/2023
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.37431 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2023
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioners, who have availed financial advances from the 1st respondent-Federal Bank, have filed the writ petition seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the housing loan account of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners state that they have availed the housing loan from the 1st respondent-Bank by creating equitable mortgage of 2.83 Ares of land together with a building of plinth area 122 square metres in Veliyam Grama Panchayat. The petitioners were servicing the loan account without default earlier.
3. Subsequently, when the petitioners suffered financial set back due to the surge of Covid-19 pandemic and W.P.(C) No.37431/2023 :3: consequent loss of employment, they became defaulters. According to the petitioners, the total outstanding liability towards the Bank is ₹29,69,548/- with interest. The tenure of the loan would expire only on 14.12.2033. The respondents are therefore compellable to extend to the petitioners the benefit of regularisation of the loan.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioners were advanced an overdraft facility of ₹5 lakhs in the year 2018. The petitioners were also given a housing loan and FITL loan subsequently. The loans were declared NPA due to the default of the petitioners in making repayments.
5. The overdue in the housing loan account of the petitioners as on 15.11.2023 is ₹5,86,000/-. An amount of ₹22,30,000/- is the total outstanding in the loan account. Against the overdraft facility extended to the petitioners, more than ₹8,35,000/- is due to the respondents. The FITL loan is also in arrears.
W.P.(C) No.37431/2023:4:
6. As the respondents have initiated proceedings invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and since Ext.P1 Possession Notice has been issued by the respondents, the petitioners will have to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for any relief. A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, contended the respondents.
7. Heard.
8. The loans were paid to the petitioners long back. The petitioners have admittedly committed defaults in repayment. The respondents have therefore invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that the High Court should not interfere with the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 lightly. Only in exceptional cases the High Court shall intervene in securitisation proceedings. If the petitioner has any W.P.(C) No.37431/2023 :5: grievance relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioners will have to resort to remedy under the said Act and approach the competent Tribunal.
The writ petition therefore cannot be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/16.11.2023 W.P.(C) No.37431/2023 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37431/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED10/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/10/2023