Kerala High Court
A.Abdul Rahim vs The Syndicate Bank on 1 February, 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 FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 2541 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
A.ABDUL RAHIM
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, VALIYAVEETIL, UMAYANALLOOR.P.O,
KOLLAM-691589.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
SMT.S.INDU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SYNDICATE BANK,
KUNDARA BRACH KALLARAKKAL BUILDING, MUKKADA, KOLLAM
DISTRICT-691501 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER
THE SYNDICATE BANK, KUNDARA BRANCH, KALLARAKKAL
BUILDING, MUKKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691501.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.R.S.KALKURA-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2541 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 WP(C).No. 2541 of 2019 3 counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, 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 WP(C).No. 2541 of 2019 4 outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.6,29,846/- as on 01.02.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 10 instalments commencing from 01.03.2019.
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 off the aforementioned amount in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.03.2019, along with applicable charges and interest. 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 will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit of this judgment WP(C).No. 2541 of 2019 5 and he will also be foreclosed 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 JUDGE Dxy WP(C).No. 2541 of 2019 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER I M.C.NO.643/2018 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/12/2018 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.1 LAKH WITH THE FIRST RESPONDENT.