Kerala High Court
Habeebulla A.A vs State Bank Of India on 4 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 446
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019(N)
PETITIONER/S:
1 HABEEBULLA A.A.,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, HASEENA MANZIL,
KUREEPPUZHA WEST, KAVANAD P.O.,
KOLLAM-691003.
2 JAMEELA BEEVI,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O.HABEEBULLA, HASEENA MANZIL,
KUREEPPUZHA WEST, KAVANAD P.O.,
KOLLAM - 691 003.
3 HASEEM HABIBULLA,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.HABEEBULLA, A.A.HASEENA MANZIL,
KUREEPPUZHA WEST, KAVANAD P.O.,
KOLLAM-691003.
BY ADVS.
SMT.BHANU THILAK
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, MR.BINULAL S.,
AGED 42 CHIEF MANAGER, RACPC, 1ST FLOOR,
RAVI'S ARCADE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM - 691 013.
SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners assail 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 petitioners 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 in Authorised WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 3 Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784]. I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this, 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 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 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 such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 4 the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay 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 petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them 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 petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.31,43,760/-, as on 04/10/2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 12 instalments commencing from 05/11/2019.
WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 5
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore, that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.
9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amount of Rs.31,43,760/-, as on 04/10/2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 05/11/2019. 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 WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 6 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, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/5.10.19 WP(C).No.26133 OF 2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 23.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE