High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-01-05Writ petition disposed; directions issued for p...

Abdul Gafoor v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.144 OF 2021(P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioner is permitted to pay Rs.1,89,660 (as on 31.12.2020) along with applicable charges and interest in ten equal monthly installments commencing from 05.02.2021, in addition to regular EMIs. If complied, the loan account will be regularised and serviceable under the loan terms; a default will vacate the benefit and permit continued recovery by the Bank. The petitioner is afforded liberty to approach the Bank for reconciliation of the account, and such reconciliation will be considered as appropriate. The directions are peremptory and any further extension requests will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The writ petition is disposed accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; directions issued for payment of overdue amount in installments; account to be regularised upon compliance; liberty for account reconciliation; default triggers continuation of recovery by bank.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Gafoor

Respondents

The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kodungallur Branch
Authorized Officer, The Kerala State Co‑operative Bank Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.V. George (Puthiyadom)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Gafoor filed WP(C) No.144 of 2021 challenging SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Co‑operative Bank. The Kerala High Court recognized that, due to statutory provisions and binding Supreme Court precedents, it cannot entertain the merits of the challenged orders in the writ petition. Nevertheless, the court explored whether a pragmatic path could be charted to balance the bank’s recovery interests with the petitioner’s financial constraints. The bank expressed a motive for early recovery, while the petitioner sought leniency to repay the overdue amount in installments. After hearing both sides, the court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to clear the overdue amount of Rs.1,89,660 as of 31.12.2020 in ten equal monthly installments starting from 05.02.2021, in addition to regular EMIs. If the schedule is adhered to, the loan account would be regularised and serviceable under the loan terms; any default would nullify the benefit and enable the Bank to proceed with recovery from that date. The court also allowed the petitioner to approach the Bank for reconciliation of the account, if possible, and stated that such reconciliation would be considered. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, with peremptory directions and a caution against further extensions except exceptional circumstances.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the SARFAESI proceedings, while statutory, should allow pragmatic relief to repay the overdue amounts in installments to avert coercive recovery and avoid ongoing litigation. He seeks permission to repay Rs.1,89,660 due as on 31.12.2020 in ten equal monthly installments starting 05.02.2021, while continuing EMI payments, to regularise the loan account. He also requests liberty to reconcile the account if possible to reflect any adjustments. While acknowledging the court’s jurisdictional limits, he seeks discretionary leniency to secure a prompt, amicable resolution and assures timely compliance with the proposed schedule, arguing that this would reduce litigation costs and preserve the creditor-debtor relationship.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank argues that prompt recovery and avoidance of protracted litigation are paramount. It is willing to accept a repayment plan that ensures rapid recovery and compliance with due amounts, specifying Rs.1,89,660 as on 31.12.2020 to be paid in ten installments from 05.02.2021, in addition to regular EMIs and charges. The Bank stresses that the SARFAESI safeguards must be respected and that any relief must not prejudice its security interest. While reconciliation may be considered if the petitioner makes a bona fide request, it cannot be used to arbitrarily reduce the outstanding amount. The counsel contends that the court can issue an arrangement for earliest possible recovery while safeguarding the Bank’s interests, without venturing into merit-based adjudication.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Positive	Cited as binding Supreme Court authority; used to justify that merits of the SARFAESI matter cannot be examined in writ proceedings and to uphold jurisdictional limits.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.	2018 (1) KLT 784	Positive	Cited as binding Kerala/High Court authority; supports the principle that merits review is limited in SARFAESI proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Gafoor v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** # **TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.144 OF 2021(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MR.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, EDAVANAKKAD HOUSE, THIRUVANCHIKULAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KODUNGALLUR P.O.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYADOM)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KODUNGALLUR BRANCH, TDCB BUILDING, EAST NADA, KODUNGALLUR P.O., PIN-680 669 REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. 2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATION BANK LTD., SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM, TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR-680 022.** ## **SRI. GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA – SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 144/21 2 ## **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 in **Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon** WPC 144/21 3 ## **[(2010) 8 SCC 110]** and in **Authorised Officer,** **State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew** **K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784]** . 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 WPC 144/21 4 about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioner pays off the dues quickly, it would be to their interest also. **==> picture [345 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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.1,89,660/- as on 31.12.2020 in not more than ten instalments commencing from 05.02.2021 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 WPC 144/21 5 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.1,89,660/-** as on **31.12.2020** , along with applicable charges and interest, in **ten** equal monthly instalments commencing from **05.02.2021.** 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. WPC 144/21 6 10. 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, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit of this judgment. 11. After I dictated this judgment, Sri.P.V.George – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the overdues in Ext.P1 which is issued on 20.11.2020 is only Rs.1,62,542/- and therefore, that the aforementioned overdue appears to be excessive. He, therefore, prays that his client be also given liberty to approach the Bank for reconciliation of the account. It is needless to say that this liberty is always available to the petitioner and if he approaches the Bank with a suitable WPC 144/21 7 |representation for the purpose|of| |---|---| |reconciliation of the account with respect|to| |the overdue amounts, the same will|be| |considered by the Bank and if there is|any| |change in the amount as mentioned by|the| |learned Standing Counsel, the said benefit|| |will be permitted while he makes|his| |installments in terms of this judgment.|| |The writ petition is ordered|| |accordingly.|| **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 144/21 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2020 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 29.12.2020 UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.