Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2993
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
PANDARATHODI PATHUMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 35749/2016
The judgment affirms that debtors must follow procedural remedies for disputes and may be granted time to settle debts without obstructing creditor rights under SARFAESI.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act Section 14 - Time to settle liability granted while upholding creditor's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought time to settle a liability owed to the respondent Bank under SARFAESI proceedings after previous allowances were made, citing personal reasons for non-fulfillment.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the petitioner's payment efforts but emphasized the need for formal dispute resolution regarding the liability and permitted a final three-month period to settle the remaining debt.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to additional time to settle debts under the SARFAESI Act despite ongoing proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that granting time to satisfy the debt does not impede the Bank's rights under the SARFAESI Act, while mandating adherence to legal procedures for disputes.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner three months to settle the liability before possession of the secured asset is taken.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court for the third time when SARFAESI proceedings had been taken by the respondent Bank. Initially, the petitioner filed W.P.C.No.13826/2012 by which some time was granted to the petitioner to settle the liability. Later, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.8684/2015 and again instalment facility was granted to the petitioner to settle the liability.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the judgment, about Rs.3,00,000/- had been paid. But, the petitioner was unable to discharge the entire liability on account of some personal reasons. Petitioner only seeks for further three months' time to discharge the entire liability. It is stated that the Bank had already initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
W.P.C.No.35749/2016
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank submits that the total outstanding would come to Rs.6,11,712/- as on 31/10/2016. But, the total liability is, in fact, disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may, when the Bank had made a claim based on the available particulars, if the petitioner has any dispute regarding the liability to pay, the petitioner will have to take alternative steps, in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, only seeks for three months' time to settle the liability.
6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that a last opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to surrender possession of the secured asset.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
i) The Advocate Commissioner, if any appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall defer taking possession of the secured asset for a period of three months from today.
ii) In the meantime, it shall be open for the petitioner to settle the liability, failing which the Advocate Commissioner shall W.P.C.No.35749/2016 be entitled to take possession of the premises and the Bank shall be entitled to take further proceedings, in accordance with law.
(
