Kerala High Court
Bindulal @ Lalumon vs State Of Kerala on 22 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 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019
PETITIONER:
BINDULAL @ LALUMON
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAMALA DESOM ,
KODAKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDDY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE AUTHIRIZED OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT
SAHAKARANA SHADHABTHI MANDIRAM, TUDO ROAD,
KOKILATHUM PADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,THRISSUR 680 022.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls into question 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. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner herein, 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 WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019 3 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, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue 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 dues quickly, WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019 4 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 overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.
7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the overdues as on 20.02.2019 comes to Rs.13,45,119/- and that if the petitioner pays an amount Rs.4,50,000/- on or before 28.03.2019 and the balance in ten equal monthly installments, commencing from 06.05.2019, the account can be regularised by the Bank.
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. WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019 5
9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay an amount Rs.4,50,000/- on or before 28.03.2019; and if he makes this payment, then he will be permitted to pay off the balance, along with applicable charges and interest, in ten equal monthly instalments, commencing from 06.05.2019. He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he 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 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 WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019 6 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 challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
SCS/22/02/19 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN //TRUE COPY// JUDGE PA TO JUDGE WP(C).No. 4823 of 2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.1.2019 TO THE PETITIONER AND GUARANTOR OF THE LOAN.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.2.2019 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY NEWSPAPER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.