Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35930/2019 of SHOUKATHALI, Vs CANARA BANK, on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35930 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER: SHOUKATHALI, AGED 49 YEARS S/O HAMZA H, LAL NAGAR, 15/274, PUDUPARIYARAM P.O, PALAKKD. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: CANARA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941WP(C).No.35930 OF 2019(M)
PETITIONER:
SHOUKATHALI,AGED 49 YEARSS/O HAMZA H, LAL NAGAR, 15/274, PUDUPARIYARAM P.O, PALAKKD.
BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ
RESPONDENTS:
CANARA BANK,REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KONGAD BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678 631.
ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL, STANDING COUNSELADV. SMT.M.J.RAJASREEADV. SRI.ANIRUDH KADAVIL
ADV.SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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
Dated this the 31st day of December 2019
The petitioner had availed financial assistance in the form of an Housing Loan from the respondent Bank. Thetenure of the loan is for fifteen years. However, due to thefinancial distress, the petitioner could not pay off themonthly installments within the stipulated time period,compelling the respondent to issue Ext.P1 possession notice.Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 requestletter for permitting him to pay off the loan amount ininstallments, the same has been refused by the respondentBank. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by filingthis writ petition.
2. Heard Smt.Mumtaz Shumsuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. I am conscious of the judicial pronouncements laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v.Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and that of this Court in Authiorised officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew [ILR 2018 (1) Ker 479] that this court should be slow ininterfering in matters under SARFAESI Act under article226 of the Constitution of India, and the parties should berelegated to exhaust their statutory remedies.
4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he is not disputing the amount claimed by the first respondent in Ext.P1 possession notice, but only wants a breathing time to pay the entirearrears in installments and to regularise the loan account.
5. Not withstanding the limitation of the jurisdictionof this Court as observed in the aforesaid precedents, I
entertain this writ petition only for the purpose of granting the petitioner a breathing time to pay off the entirearrears towards the loan account in equal monthly installments. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the Bank is also ready to accept the defaulted amount in four monthly installments, and as on today, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is due to theBank.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay off the entire outstanding arrears in installments, and also to give a quietus to the litigation, I feel that some indulgence andleniency can be shown in favour of the petitioner.
7. In the result, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:-
i) Petitioner is directed to pay the over due amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as on today along withapplicable charges and interest in four equalmonthly installments commencing from15.1.2020.
ii) In addition to the above amount, petitioner shall also pay the regular equalmonthly installment as per the loan agreementand time schedule fixed, without fail.
iii) If petitioner makes the aforesaid
payment the loan account shall stand regularisedand he would be liberty to the service of theaccount as per the original terms of thesanctioned loan account.
Conclusion
iv)Needless to mention that, if the petitionercommits any default in payment of the amountas directed above, the benefit granted to himby this judgment shall stands vacated and theBank would be liberty to proceed with therecovery proceedings and recover the entire liability from the petitioner. It is also madeclear that the directions in this judgment areperemptory in nature and the petitioner shallcomply the same without committing anydefault. No further requests for extension ormodification of this judgment will be permittedunless in exceptional circumstances, failingwhich the petitioner's right to challenge theproceedings initiated by the Bank under theSARFAESI Act will stand foreclosed before anyother alternative forum or Court.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-ACM/31.12.2019
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 9.12.2019
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 23.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT