Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1636
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ, A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
M/S PGS HOSPITALITY – Appellant
Versus
MS FEDERAL BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL 2480/2015
Failure to comply with repayment terms in SARFAESI proceedings precludes further extensions, protecting the bank's interests.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Writ Petition - No relevant Act Sections referenced - The court upheld the lower judgment allowing bank proceedings to continue due to no compliance by the petitioner with repayment terms, emphasizing the need for timely payment in financial obligations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a previous judgment that permitted the repayment of overdue amounts in installments and faced dismissal of a subsequent review petition. The case involved SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the bank against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification to interfere with the lower court's decision as the petitioner failed to comply with repayment orders despite extensions granted and a significant outstanding amount.
Issues: The key issue was whether the court should grant further time for the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts, given past non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle established was that repeated failure to comply with repayment schedules undermines the possibility of further extensions being granted, particularly when substantial amounts are owed.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging judgment dated 19/8/2015 in WP(C) No.23076/15 by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to discharge the entire overdue amount in two instalments starting from 15/9/2015. Petitioner filed a Review Petition as RP No.954/2015, which came to be dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. It was inter alia contended that if sufficient time was granted to the petitioner, he will be in a position to pay back the overdue amount.
3. When the appeal came up for admission, we passed an interim order directing the appellant to remit an amount of `25,00,000/- to the Bank. However, the appellant was unable to deposit the said amount also.
W.A. No.2480/15
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would however submit that if sufficient time is granted, appellant will be in a position to repay the amount.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge had granted time to repay the amount and no payment was made by the appellant. Even this Court has granted an opportunity to pay off the amount to the Bank. That also has not been complied with. When the liability is substantial and granting further time will affect the interest of the Bank, we do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the matter.
If the appellant has any grievance with reference to the amount, his remedy is to approach the Tribunal for appropriate reliefs. In the said circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
