High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-24Petition disposed of with directions for paymen...

Ibrahim v. Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WPC 1662/19

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition was disposed of with directions allowing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000 by 28.03.2019 and the balance in eight equal monthly installments commencing 30.04.2019, with regular EMIs from February 2019. If paid as directed, the loan would be regularised and the account serviced according to the sanctioned terms; default would nullify the benefit and permit continuation of SARFAESI proceedings. The court also noted the possibility, as a discretionary matter, of returning possession after the first instalment upon the bank’s consideration.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions for payment schedule and terms of regularisation; peremptory compliance required; discretionary power to consider possession restoration after initial instalment; failure to comply revokes the benefit and permits continued SARFAESI action. No merits review of the impugned orders was undertaken due to statutory constraints. }

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ibrahim

Respondents

Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Ranjith (Manjeri)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.C. Sasidharan-SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

In a writ petition under the SARFAESI regime, Ibrahim challenged proceedings initiated by the Thrissur District Co‑operative Bank Ltd. The Kerala High Court, while noting its jurisdiction is constrained by the statutory framework of SARFAESI and the binding precedents, declined to entertain the merits of the petition and refrained from examining the legality of the impugned orders. The court invoked Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and later Mathew, ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479, to emphasize that it cannot adjudicate the legality or motive of SARFAESI actions contrary to the statute and authoritative judgments. Nevertheless, the petitioner sought discretionary relief to pay the overdue amounts in installments, citing financial hardship. The bank’s counsel conceded the bank’s interest lies in recovery and not protracted litigation. On the bank’s offer, the court proposed a settlement: the petitioner should pay Rs. 10,00,000 by 28.03.2019, with the balance to be cleared in eight equal monthly installments commencing 30.04.2019, and regular EMIs from February 2019. If complied, the loan would be regularised and the petitioner would be free to service the account as per the loan terms. The order prevents further extension requests and warns that non‑compliance would revoke the relief and allow continuation of SARFAESI action. The court also allowed the possibility of the bank returning possession after the first instalment, subject to the bank’s discretion.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial restraint on merits review in SARFAESI matters; non-interference with statutory orders (Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon)
Following precedents in Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479) regarding treatment of SARFAESI proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued for leniency to pay overdue amounts in installments in spite of the jurisdictional limits on merits review in SARFAESI matters. Acknowledging financial constraints and the bank’s interest in rapid recovery, he proposed a settlement: pay Rs. 10,00,000 by 28.03.2019 and the balance in eight equal monthly installments starting 30.04.2019, with regular EMIs from February 2019, leading to regularisation of the loan upon timely payment.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank’s counsel stressed the policy objective of recovery under the SARFAESI regime and the bank’s preference to avoid protracted litigation. It accepted the petitioner’s proposed settlement framework as a feasible path to recover dues while preventing prolonged litigation, emphasizing that the court’s role was limited to jurisdictional and procedural aspects rather than merits of the underlying actions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	((2010) 8 SCC 110)	Positive	Cited as binding authority establishing that the court cannot adjudicate the legality/merits of SARFAESI orders; limits on merits review.
Authorized Officer, SBT v. Mathew	ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479	Positive	Cited as followed, reinforcing the jurisdictional limits on reviewing SARFAESI actions.

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 Ibrahim v. Thrissur District 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 THURSDAY ,THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 1662 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **IBRAHIM, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.KOCHUNNI(LATE), KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, LOKAMALESHWARAM, KODUNGALLUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, SAHAKARANA SATHABDI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680022.** **BY ADV. SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 1662/19 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 1662/19 3 **Satyawati Tondon** ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in **Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew** (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). 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 1662/19 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 **23.01.2019** comes to **Rs.24,28,780/-** and that if the petitioner pays an amount Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2019 and the balance in eight equal monthly installments, commencing from 30.04.2019, the account can be regularised by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner WPC 1662/19 5 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.10,00,000/-** on or before 28.03.2019 **;** and if he makes this payment, then he will be permitted to pay off the balance, along with applicable charges and interest, in **eight** equal monthly instalments, commencing from **30.04.2019.** He shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail from February 2019. 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 WPC 1662/19 6 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. 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 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. After the dictation of this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Bank has already taken over physical WPC 1662/19 7 possession of the property and since that his client's family, which consists of aged parents, has nowhere else to stay, once the petitioner makes payment of Rs.10,00,000/- the Bank may be directed to give him back the possession of the secured asset. Even though I hear the learned counsel as afore, I am afraid that I cannot issue the aforeprayed direction, since possession of the secured asset can normally be returned only after the loan is regularised. However, as a special case, I give the petitioner liberty to approach the Bank, after making payment of the first instalment of Rs.10,00,000/- as ordered herein, and the Bank may then consider his case sympathetically and consider giving him back the possession of the secured asset, subject to their discretion. ## **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR ## **JUDGE** WPC 1662/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AFFIXED IN THE DOOR OF THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, DATED 04/12/2018.