ANU SENTHIL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** ## **TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANU SENTHIL AGED 32 YEARS W/O. SENTHIL KUMAR M, RESIDING AT SENTHIL KUMAR SADANAM (ALAKAPURI), VELIYAM WEST, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT:** - **1 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, POOYAPPALLY BRANCH, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT691537.** - **2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC, KOTTARAKARA-691501** - **BY ADV.SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC BY ADV.SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 31st day of December 2019** The petitioner's husband had availed a housing loan from the first respondent for an amount of Rs.30,000,00/-. The petitioner's husband had also created an equitable mortgage in respect of his property in favour of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that her husband fell into grave financial crisis and that he is unable to pay off the monthly installments. In the above circumstances, the first respondent has declared the property as a non-performing asset and has affixed Ext.P3 possession notice on the property. The petitioner's husband is now out of station, he has instructed the petitioner to challenge the proceedings initiated by the **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 3** respondent. Even though, the petitioner approached the first respondent seeking time to settle the outstanding amounts in installments, the first respondent has threatened to take possession of the property on or before 31.12.2019. 3. I have heard Sri.Alexander George, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jowaher Jose, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. I am conscious of the judicial pronouncements laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and that of this Court in Authiorised officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew [ILR 2018 (1) Ker 479] that this court should be slow in interfering in matters under SARFAESI Act under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the parties should be relegated to exhaust their **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 4** ## statutory remedies. 5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he is not disputing the amount claimed by the first respondent in Ext.P3 possession notice, but only wants a breathing time to pay the entire arrears in installments and to regularise the loan account. 6. Not withstanding the limitation of the jurisdiction of this Court as observed in the aforesaid precedents, I entertain this writ petition only for the purpose of granting the petitioner a breathing time to pay off the entire arrears towards the loan account in equal monthly installments. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the Bank is also ready to accept the defaulted amount in four monthly installments, and as on today, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 5** is due to the Bank. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay off the entire outstanding arrears in installments, and also to give a quietus to the litigation, I feel that some indulgence and leniency can be shown in favour of the petitioner. 8. In the result, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:- i) Petitioner is directed to pay the over due amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as on today along with applicable charges and interest in six monthly installments commencing from 15.1.2020. ii) In addition to the above amount, petitioner shall also pay the regular equal monthly installment as per the loan agreement **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 6** and time schedule fixed, without fail. iii) If petitioner makes the aforesaid payment the loan account shall stand regularised and he would be liberty to the service of the account as per the original terms of the sanctioned loan account. iv) Needless to mention that, if the petitioner commits any default in payment of the amount as directed above, the benefit granted to him by this judgment shall stands vacated and the Bank would be liberty to proceed with the recovery proceedings and recover the entire liability from the petitioner. It is also made clear that the directions in this judgment are peremptory in nature and the petitioner shall comply the same without committing any default. No further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted unless in exceptional circumstances, failing which the petitioner's right to challenge the proceedings **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 7** initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act will stand foreclosed before any other alternative forum or Court. v) The respondents are directed to furnish to the petitioner a statement regarding the loan account, as on today on or before 5.1.2020. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. SD/- ACM/31.12.2019 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **WP(C).No.35929 OF 2019(M) 8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.**