Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Shine Motors – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 393 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. Jawhar
For the Respondents: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Raja Kannan, Geetha Hariharan
The court declined relief under the SARFAESI Act due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's interim payment conditions, leaving it to the borrower to seek installment facilities directly from the financial institution.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, following a stay order from the court conditioned on payment. The court noted the petitioners' failuire to comply with the stipulated payment terms despite some loan closures. The core issue involved the petitioners' compliance with conditional directives for loan repayment and their subsequent entitlement to relief. The court reasoned that since the petitioners did not adhere to the interim order, they were not entitled to further indulgence under the court's jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty for the petitioners to approach the respondents for alternate repayment arrangements.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition, prior conditional stay, and status of compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. denial of relief due to non-compliance and direction to approach respondents for settlement. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. On 24.01.2022, this Court stayed the coercive proceedings against the petitioners, subject to the petitioners remitting Rs. 7.5 lakhs on or before 23.02.2022.
3. Smt.Geetha Hariharan, the learned counsel representing Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, with reference to the instructions received, states that only an amount of Rs.50,000/- is paid by the petitioners. She further adds that some of the loans obtained by the petitioners have since been closed.
4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners would not be entitled to any further relief from this Court. If the petitioners require any instalment facility etc, it is for them to approach the respondents with an appropriate representation.
With this observation, this writ petition would stand disposed of.
