Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14589
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
May Mary Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER – Respondent
RP 988 2023
LIJOY P.VARGHESE
Parties are bound by representations made in court, reinforcing the principle that courts must uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Headnote:
Review - Writ Petition - Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act - The court affirmed that a prior agreement made by the review petitioner in court to pay an outstanding loan is binding, emphasizing that allegations of counsel misconduct must not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner sought to review a prior writ petition judgment that mandated payment of an outstanding loan amount in installments, which the petitioner claimed had been misinterpreted and agreed upon without her consent by former counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s acceptance of the repayment plan was made knowingly and deliberately, rejecting claims of misconduct by her former counsel and emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of court agreements.
Issues: Whether the review petitioner could alter her position after voluntarily agreeing to a repayment plan, and the propriety of her counsel's conduct in the prior proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A party is bound by its representations made in court, and cannot later claim ignorance or lack of consent regarding such representations.
Final Decision: The review petition is dismissed.
ORDER
The review petition is filed to review the judgment in the writ petition.
2. The review petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that the writ petition was filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). The request of the review petitioner was to regularise the loan accounts availed from the respondents and pay the overdue amount in instalments. Even though the review petitioner had directly approached the respondents with a similar request, the same was not considered. Hence, the review petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. However, this Court ordered the outstanding amount to be paid in ten instalments. The review petitioner was liable to pay only the overdue amount because the loan accounts had a tenure of another ten years and the review petitioner’s business was operational. This Court mistook the term “loan outstanding” as a synonym for “loan overdue”. Instead of directing the payment of the overdue amount, this Court has directed the entire outstanding amount to be paid in ten instalments. Although the review petitioner had filed W.A. No.1519/2023 before this Court, the same was dismissed with liberty to file a review petition. The action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India .
The policy adopted by the respondents is unethical, unscrupulous and against public policy. The review petitioner’s former counsel, without any application of mind and without consulting her, had agreed to pay the outstanding amount in instalments. The review petitioner had not given any such instruction. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be recalled, and the review petition may be allowed.
3. Heard; Sri.Lijoy Parackal Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The writ petition was filed to direct the respondents to permit the review petitioner to pay the overdue amount in monthly instalments and regularise the loan accounts.
5. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 7.8.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the review petitioner had availed three loans from the second respondent bank, and the total outstanding amount was Rs.1,78,95,257/-. The respondents were only prepared to permit the review petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in ten equated monthly instalments and close the loan accounts and were not amenable to regularising the loan accounts.
The learned counsel who was then appearing for the review petitioner accepted the offer and the same was recorded by this Court.
6. It was based on the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court exercised its plenary powers and disposed of the writ petition, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court inSouth Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320) that this Court shall not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , unless in extraordinary circumstances, to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated under the Act.
7. It is after voluntarily accepting the offer made by the respondents and this Court recording the submissions made by both sides that the review petitioner has, through another counsel, filed the present review petition alleging that her former counsel has without consulting her made an irresponsible submission before this Court.
8. I find the procedure followed by the review petitioner, in filing the review petition through another counsel than the one who filed the writ petition, to be against the accepted practice and conventions followed before this Court.
9. Matters would be different if the very same Counsel came up before this Co
