High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-04-11Writ petition disposed; loan repayment plan app...

Devadasan v. Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 11702 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed in terms directing the debtor to pay Rs.15,00,000 on or before 25.04.2019; the balance, including charges and interest, to be paid in four equal monthly installments beginning 27.05.2019, with regular EMIs to be paid; if complied with, the loan account will be regularized and the petitioner may service the account as per the loan terms. If default occurs, the benefit of this judgment stands vacated and the Bank may pursue the remaining remedies under SARFAESI. The Debts Recovery Tribunal SA No.58/2018 is to be withdrawn by the petitioner within one week; the bank may decide on re-delivery terms upon payment of the first installment. The directions are peremptory, and no further extensions will be ordinarily granted.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; loan repayment plan approved with specified instalments; liberty to pursue re-delivery terms; withdrawal of DRT SA; non-compliance will vacate the relief and permit recovery actions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Devadasan

Respondents

The Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. K. Saju

Counsels for Respondents

• Devaprasanth P. J. (Standing Counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges proceedings initiated by the Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the petition, recognizes its jurisdictional constraint and expressly notes that it cannot adjudicate the legality of the impugned orders on merits, given statutory provisions and binding precedents. It cites Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Mathew K.C. as controlling authorities, underscoring that the court is bound by such decisions in SARFAESI matters. Despite this, the court engages with the dispute by exploring equitable relief to facilitate debt recovery without inviting protracted litigation. The petitioner argues financial distress and seeks a practical opportunity to repay the overdue amounts in installments, rather than immediate enforcement actions. The bank submits that its primary objective is timely recovery and is amenable to a structured repayment plan if it serves recovery interests; it also acknowledges that a quick recovery would be beneficial to both sides. The judge, exercising discretionary power, directs a repayment schedule conditioned on timely compliance and maintains that non-compliance would nullify the relief and permit continued recovery proceedings. The court records that the secured asset has been taken possession of and leaves it to both parties to pursue possible re-delivery terms. The writ petition is disposed accordingly with peremptory directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the SARFAESI proceedings are challenging and seeks leniency to enable payment of overdue amounts in installments, arguing financial constraints. He requests permission to settle the dues in a staged manner and to withdraw or adjust related legal steps where possible, including withdrawing proceedings in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He also seeks permission for re-delivery of the secured asset once a first instalment is paid, subject to Bank’s terms.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank maintains that its primary objective is swift recovery and that recovery should not be stymied by protracted litigation. It indicates willingness to consider a payment plan if it facilitates timely recovery, but insists on strict adherence to the proposed schedule and on continuing the remedy available under SARFAESI if default occurs. The Bank notes the debtor’s financial constraints but emphasizes the necessity of timely payment and the prevention of further defaults.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	[(2010) 8 SCC 110]	Positive	Cited as a binding controlling authority; the court explicitly emphasizes the binding nature of this Supreme Court decision in SARFAESI-related proceedings.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.	[2018 (1) KLT 784]	Positive	Cited as a binding principle reinforcing the court’s stance on jurisdiction and the binding precedents governing SARFAESI cases.

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 Devadasan v. Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank 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** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 11702 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DEVADASAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. IMBICHI, 'DEVARAJSADAN', PINNANATH NORTH BEYPORE P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 015** **BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK** **HEAD OFFICE, KALLAI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, 673 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER** **BY ADV. SRI. DEVAPRASANTH P.J.-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 11702/19 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.** WPC 11702/19 3 **Satyawati Tondon [(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 WPC 11702/19 4 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 overdues as on **11.04.2019** comes to **Rs.30,16,460/-** and that if the petitioner pays an amount Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 25.04.2019 and the balance in four equal monthly installments, commencing from 27.05.2019, the account can be regularised by the Bank. WPC 11702/19 5 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 an amount **Rs.15,00,000/-** on or before **25.04.2019;** and if he makes this payment, then he will be permitted to pay off the balance, along with applicable charges and interest, in **four** equal monthly instalments, commencing from **27.05.2019.** 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 WPC 11702/19 6 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. 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 and he will also be foreclosed from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court. 11. At this time, Sri.P.J.Devaprasanth, WPC 11702/19 7 the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, submits that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing SA No.58/2018 and that he must withdraw the same if he wants the benefit of this judgment. 12. Sri.S.K.Saju, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client will withdraw this SA within a period of one week from today. This is recorded, making it clear that if the petitioner does not comply with this, the benefit of this judgment will stand vacated. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also prays that since the secured asset has already been taken possession of, on payment of the first installment of Rs.15 lakhs, his client may be given liberty to approach the Bank for re-delivery of the same. 14. I leave this liberty to the petitioner and leave it to the Bank to decide WPC 11702/19 8 whether such re-delivery can be ordered and on what terms. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 11702/19 9 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT WPC NO, 8231/2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2017 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.39217/2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2018 IN WP(C).NO.41527/2017