SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – Appellant
Versus
SUNIL S.S. – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1924 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JAYKAR.K.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN, SMT. O.M. SHALINA

A bank may seek a fresh petition for execution under the SARFAESI Act with updated financial details following negotiations with debtors.

Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act - Section 14 - Extension of time limit for execution of commission warrant - The petitioner bank sought an extension for the execution of a commission warrant which was dismissed by the lower court - The respondents had defaulted on a loan, which led to the bank initiating recovery proceedings - The court allowed the petitioner bank to file a new petition with updated information on amounts paid by the respondents. (Paras 1, 2, 5)

(B) Recovery Proceedings - The bank's reliance on the respondents' offer for payment and subsequent agreement illustrates the dynamic of default and compliance in loan recovery scenarios. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The case arises from a loan default by the first respondent, compelling the Punjab National Bank to execute recovery under the SARFAESI Act. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, but the recovery process met delays after the respondents offered partial payments. When these payments were not fulfilled, the bank sought an extension from the magistrate.

Findings of Court:
The court permitted the bank to file a fresh petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to update the balance due and directed the magistrate to evaluate the new petition based on its merits.

Issues: The main issue was whether to grant the bank an extension to execute the commission warrant given the circumstances surrounding the payment offers by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the need for an updated account of dues when parties engage in negotiations about debt repayment, recognizing the shifting obligations that accompany such engagements.

Result: The Crl.M.C is disposed of as per the directions given.

Table of Content
1. extension of time for executing commission warrant under the sarfaesi act. (Para 1)
2. bank's obligation to show balance amounts in recovery cases. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court's allowance for filing fresh petitions. (Para 3)
4. court directs merit-based evaluation for fresh petitions. (Para 5)

O R D E R

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025 The petitioner, a nationalized bank, is aggrieved by the dismissal of its application seeking extension of the time limit fixed for executing the commission warrant issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act . The essential facts are as under;

After availing a loan from the petitioner bank, the 1st respondent committed default, compelling the bank to initiate recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act . The proceeding reached the stage of the bank taking physical possession of the secured property. For that purpose, the bank filed a petition under Section 14 before the jurisdictional court. The said petition was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner appointed for assisting the bank in taking physical possession of the property. In the meanwhile, the respondents approached the bank and offered to pay substantial amount and requested to hold the recovery proceedings in abeyance. Believing the offer to be genuine, the bank kept the recovery proceedings in abeyance. As a result, the time limit for executing the warrant issued to the Advocate Commissioner, expired. As the respondents failed to abide by their promise, the bank approached the Magistrate with an application seeking extension of the time limit stipulated in the warrant. That petition having been dismissed by Annexure A5 order, this Crl.M.C is filed.

2. I heard Adv. Jaykar K.S appearing for the petitioner bank and Adv. G.Sudheer for the party respondents.

3. From the submissions made across the Bar, it is apparent that, after appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 , some amount was paid by the respondents.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the bank is bound to show the balance amount in the affidavit filed along with the petition under Section 14 .

5. In view of the subsequent payments, the bank can be permitted to file a fresh petition under Section 14 accompanied by an affidavit showing the exact balance amount due from the respondents.

The Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of by permitting the bank to file a fresh petition under Section 14 and directing the jurisdictional Magistrate to decide the petition on merits.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top