The court upheld the bank's right to seize assets due to the petitioner's default in repayment despite earlier interim orders.

JUDGMENT DATED THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 The petitioner is a businessman and he has availed financial assistance from the 1^st respondent by way of business loan and overdraft facility. The loan was availed by mortgaging his residential property having an extent of 35 cents together with a two storied house. The petitioner used to repay the monthly installments on time without any default till the year 2017. It is submitted that the petitioner’s unit is situated in Thottumugham Aluva, which was badly affected by flood in 2018 and all the machineries and other equipments and the shed was damaged and destroyed. Later, in the year 2020, COVID pandemic shut down also badly affected his revamped business. Thus, the repayment of the loan was defaulted. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court to issue a direction to the respondents regularise the loan account by permitting the petitioners to pay the loan amount in installments.

2. On 13.10.2025, an interim order was passed by this Court deferring the coercive steps against the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty thousand only) within one month. It is submitted that the petitioner has not remitted the said amount. Therefore, the Bank has taken physical possession of the secured assets on 27.11.2025. Since the remittance as ordered is not honoured and taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ (2023) 17 SCC 311 ], the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE Mn APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 37653 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED