Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30020 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
ARUN ELDHO THOMAS AGED 32 YEARS S/O.LATE C.G.THOMAS, CHETTIYAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, THAIMATTOM, POTHANICAD POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 671.
BY ADVS.
ZAKIR HUSSAIN K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., POTHANICAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM - 686 671.
2 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
POTHANICAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM - 686 671, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
BY ADV S.EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.30020/2021 -:2:- Dated this the 13th day of June,2023 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in equated monthly instalments and regularise the loan account.
2.
The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed financial assistance from the second respondent – Bank by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the instalments on time. Now, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(in short, ‘Act’) and is proceeding against the secured asset.
The petitioners are prepared to pay off the overdue amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition.
3.
Heard; Sri. Zakir Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.Easwaran the
W.P.(C)No.30020/2021 -:3:- learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent appearing for the respondents.
4.
Sri. S.Easwaran, on instructions, submitted that the respondents are not willing to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount. The said submission is recorded. The petitioner may be directed to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under the Act. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320], after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under
W.P.(C)No.30020/2021 -:4:- Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the stand taken by the respondents, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition by exercising the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/13.06.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge
W.P.(C)No.30020/2021 -:5:- APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 20/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE POTHANICAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE TERM LOAN.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE CASH CREDIT.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL