Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 73357
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
MARAKKAR M., – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/GENENRAL MANAGER IN CHARGE, – Respondent
WP(C)/3870/2019
SRI.K.RAKESH, SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
The court affirmed its jurisdictional limitations under the SARFAESI Act while facilitating a repayment plan for the petitioner to settle dues.
Headnote:
SARFAESI - Writ Petition - SARFAESI Act - Sections Not Specified - The court's decision emphasizes the jurisdictional limitations in reviewing the legality of bank proceedings under the SARFAESI Act while allowing a borrower to settle dues in installments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged proceedings by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, seeking leniency for paying overdue amounts, while the court recognized its jurisdictional limits in considering the legality of the bank's actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it could not assess the legality of the impugned orders but allowed the petitioner to pay off overdue amounts in installments, which aligned with the bank's interest in recovery.
Issues: Whether the court could intervene in ongoing bank proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and allow the petitioner to make repayments in installments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to question the bank's orders under the SARFAESI Act but could facilitate the petitioner in settling overdue payments, ensuring bank recovery.
Final Decision: The writ petition is ordered allowing payment of overdue amounts in installments as proposed by the Bank.
JUDGMENT
Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls into question certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inUnion Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ( (2010) 8 SCC 110 ) and followed recently inAuthorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew ( ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479 ). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on its merits.
4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments.
5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the request on the part of the petitioner can be allowed, especially on account of the fact that the Banks are only interested in recovering and not in maintaining and keep pending litigations and legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also.
6. In view of the fact that the proceedings initiated by the Bank would consume time to culminate in total recovery and taking into account the financial constraints and burden that have been alleged and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank.
7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.3,57,192/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Two only) as on 11/02/2019 in not more than 8 instalments commencing from 15/03/2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.
9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.3,57,192/- as on 11/02/2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in 8 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15/03/2019. He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioner by continuing with the proceedings from the stage it is on this date.
I make it clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and that the petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted, save in exceptional circumstances and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the b
