Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41893/2017 of REJU A.A. Vs BRANCH MANAGER,CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41893 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ REJU A.A., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, ANJUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 41893 of 2017 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
REJU A.A.,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER,
ANJUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
BY SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SC, CSB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41893 of 2017 (J)
----------------------------------------- APPENDIX
--------------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 07.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR IN O.A.NO:417/2017 OF D.R.T-1, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN M.C 543/2017 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITSNIL
----------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
sdr/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.41893 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The essential challenge pitched by the petitioner isagainst certain proceedings that have been initiated by therespondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement ofSecurities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or considerationof the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in thiswrit petition on account of the imperative statutoryprovisions and binding judicial pronouncements especiallythat of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India
v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110). I, therefore, donot propose to consider any of the contentions raised by thepetitioner on merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this issue, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction asaforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniencyor latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdueamounts in installments.
5. I have enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitionercan be allowed, especially on account of the fact that theBanks are only interested in recovering and not inmaintaining and keep pending litigations and legalproceedings against the recovery.
6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated bythe Bank would consume time to culminate in total recoveryand taking into account the financial constraints and burdenthat have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I aminclined to dispose of the writ petition allowing him anopportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by theBank.
7. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay W.P.(c).No.41893 of 2017
off the overdue amount of Rs.15,11,491/-, as on25.12.2017,including EMIs payable up to 31.01.2018 in tenequal monthly instalments commencing from 01.02.2018. Itgoes without saying that if there is any default in making thepayment as directed above, the benefit granted under thisjudgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at libertyto recover the entire liability from the petitioner.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
sm/