Kerala High Court
Kuttayi vs Branch Manager on 1 March, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019
PETITIONER:
KUTTAYI
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, MOONUKANDATHIL,
KOLAKATTUCHALIL P.O, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
SME ERNAKULAM BRANCH, KODAI TOWERS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, KOCHI-682 025
BY ADVS.
SMT.G.LEKHA
SMT.P.J.FLONY
SMT.S.AMBILY
SMT.UMA.G.KRISHNAN
SRI.SAJU N.A.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.S.DILIP-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner assails certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. When I deal with this writ petition, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019 3 the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the total outstanding amounts in installments.
5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.
6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank.
7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.44,29,035/- as on 01.03.2019, provided he pays Rs.10 lakhs on or before 27.03.2019 and the balance of the afore amount in 8 installments, along with other charges and WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019 4 interest, commencing from 16.05.2019.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.
9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay Rs.10 lakhs on or before 27.03.2019 and the balance of the afore amount in 8 installments, along with other charges and interest, commencing from 16.05.2019. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and he will also be foreclosed from WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019 5 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
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No. 6288 of 2019
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 13(2) OF SARFAESI
DATED 13.10.2017
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER, APPOINTED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI 14.1.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 17.1.2019