Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34961
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
SUBAIDA U.K. – Appellant
Versus
SYNDICATE BANK – Respondent
WP(C)/1075/2018
SRI.P.S.ANISHAD, SRI.T.AJITH KUMAR, SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
A petition cannot be filed for the review of a prior judgment under the guise of a new writ application.
Headnote:
Loan - Securitisation - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The court dismissed the petitioner's request for a fresh writ despite the circumstances affecting payment, highlighting that review procedures must follow proper protocols.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner defaulted on loans from a bank and previously sought relief in court, allowing repayment in instalments. She did not follow through and sought further assistance due to purported difficulties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's request was essentially a review of a prior judgment, which was not permissible as a new writ petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could file a fresh writ petition seeking to review a past judgment allowing repayment of overdue loans.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh writ petition cannot be filed to seek a review of a judgment from a previous writ petition, underscoring the necessity of following appropriate legal procedures for reviews.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek a review properly.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner availed two loans from Syndicate Bank (the bank). When she committed default, proceedings have been initiated by the bank against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) and the said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C).No.14229 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioner to pay the overdue in the loan accounts in instalments, and directing the bank to regularise the loan, if the petitioner remits the overdue within the time stipulated in the judgment. It is conceded by the petitioner that the overdue in the loan accounts has not been liquidated by her as permitted by this Court in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.14229 of 2012 even after almost six years. According to the petitioner, it is due to reasons beyond her control that she could not pay the overdue as permitted by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions again in this matter for payment of the overdue in instalments and for regularisation of the loans.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the bank.
3. The prayer in the writ petition is virtually one for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.14229 of 2012. A fresh writ petition cannot be filed seeking review of the judgment in an earlier writ petition.
In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application for review of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.14229 of
2012, if so advised.
