The court emphasized the urgency of recovery by financial institutions against defaulting borrowers and affirmed the lack of grounds for interfering in arbitration award executions.

Johnson John, J.

The appellant is the writ petitioner who challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank for execution of the arbitration awards against the appellant who availed 3 loans from the respondent Bank and the total amount involved is Rs.1,32,34,533/-.

2. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge taking note of the fact that the appellant owes huge amount to the respondent Bank and that considering the critical financial position of the Bank, recovery of all amounts due to the bank is imperative and urgent. The learned single Judge also found that the appellant has not succeeded in pointing out any illegality in the proceedings initiated by the Bank for recovery of the amount in execution of the arbitration awards against the respondent.

3. The appellant also filed C.M. Application No. 1 of 2026 to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the writ appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the writ petition was disposed of on 15.12.2021 and the copy application for obtaining the certified copy was filed only on 24.01.2025 and there is a delay of 12 days in filing the writ appeal. It is also stated that the appellant has been facing severe financial constraints and he has to mobilize the required funds to meet the litigation expenses and hence, the delay occurred.

4. Heard Sri. Arun Chandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are numerous judgments wherein this Court has permitted payment of the loan amount in equal monthly instalments and therefore, in this case, also an opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant to pay the loan amount due in instalments.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank pointed out that the total outstanding liability as on 07.03.2025 in all three loans taken by the appellant is Rs.1,32,34,533/- and that the said loans were availed in the year 2021 and subsequently, arbitration proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein, when the appellant committed default in payment of the loan amount and thereafter, arbitration awards were passed in favour of the Bank in all the three arbitration cases on 28.10.2022. It is pointed out that thereafter execution petitions were filed and the sale officer of the respondent also issued sale notices to the appellant which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 in the writ petition.

7. The reasons stated for condoning the delay is that the appellant has been facing severe financial constraints and he has to mobilize the required funds to meet the litigation expenses and we find that the same cannot be accepted as sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant herein is not pointing out any illegality or irregularity in the execution proceedings initiated on the basis of the arbitration awards. Further, it is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the writ petition, in spite of obtaining an interim order, the appellant has not made any attempt to discharge his liability to the Bank and that the financial position of the Bank is very critical and the bank is now unable to repay deposit in time and therefore, recovery of the amount due to the Bank is very urgent.

9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings initiated by the bank, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge.

In the result,