Kerala High Court
Suresh Thampan S vs Bank Of Maharasthra on 18 December, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 SURESH THAMPAN S.
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. SIVANANDAN, ANOORTHECKATHIL, MARUTHADI, KAVANADU P.O.,
KOLLAM - 691 003.
2 AMBILI V.,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. SURESH THAMPAN, ANOORTHECKATHIL, MARUTHADI, KAVANADU
P.O., KOLLAM - 691 003.
3 VIJAYAMMA,
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. SIVANANDAN, ANOORTHECKATHIL, MARUTHADI, KAVANADU P.O.,
KOLLAM - 691 003.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF MAHARASTHRA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KOLLAM BRANCH, HIGH SCHOOL
JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 009.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, KOLLAM BRANCH, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION,
KOLLAM - 691 009.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The essential challenge pitched by the petitioners is against certain proceedings that have been initiated 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 petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. 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 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, do not propose to WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018 3 consider any of the contentions raised by the petitioners on merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this issue, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.
5. I have enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioners 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 the recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the 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 WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018 4 recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition allowing them an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.
7. Sri.Sreekanth S Nair, the learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the over due amount of Rs.9 lakhs in not more than 10 instalments commencing from 25.01.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.
8. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.9 lakhs as on 17.12.2018, along with applicable charges and interest, in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 25.01.2019. They shall also in addition to this pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if there is any WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018 5 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 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 from challenging the proceedings involved in this writ petition before any other alternative forum or court.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp-18.12 JUDGE
WP(C).No. 40514 of 2018
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED IN KERALA
KOUMUDY DAILY DATED 02.12.2018.