High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-07Dismissed

K. Bhaskaran and Padmavathi L. v. State Bank of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 28611 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to work out their remedies under the statute.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Bhaskaran
Padmavathi L.

Respondents

State Bank of India, SME Mavelikkara Branch
The Authorized Officer (Under the SARFAESI Act, 2002), SBI, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch
K. Sukumaran S/o Kochummini, aged 78 years, Lekshmipriya, Puthiavila (P.O.), Kandalloor Village, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha-690531 (Impleaded as per order dated 19.05.2023 in I.A. 1/2023 in WP(C) 28611/2022)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.S. Manu
• Dilu Joseph
• C.A. Anupaman
• T.B. Sivaprasad
• C.Y. Vijay Kumar
• Manju E.R.
• Anandhu
• Satheesh Alint Joseph
• Paul Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Jithesh Menon, Senior Counsel, SBI
• Dinoop P.D.
• Goutham Krishnan U.B.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, K. Bhaskaran and Padmavathi L., stood as guarantors for a cash credit loan facility availed by Lakshmi Copra Trading Company from the State Bank of India (SBI). After the principal borrower defaulted, SBI initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioners’ secured assets. The petitioners expressed willingness to settle the outstanding dues in installments and seek regularization of the loan in light of prior Court intervention. By Ext.P5, this Court had previously permitted the company to repay the outstanding amount in eighteen monthly installments, but the company failed to comply, and the bank proceeded against the assets. The petitioners challenged these actions via a writ petition, seeking relief to pay in installments and regularize the loan. The Supreme Court’s decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320) was cited, which held that High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226, except in extraordinary circumstances. After considering pleadings, the court noted that it would not exercise its discretionary power again under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, albeit with liberty for petitioners to pursue remedies under the Act. The decision aligns with the principle of limited court interference in SARFAESI actions, while preserving the petitioners’ statutory remedies under law.

Provisions of Law Cited

SARFAESI Act, 2002Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-interference principle in SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226, except in extraordinary circumstances (as per Supreme Court precedent)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that they stood as guarantors for Lakshmi Copra Trading Company’s loan and are ready to pay the outstanding amount in installments to regularize the account. They cited Ext. P5, which had permitted payment in eighteen equated monthly installments, to urge that the Court should facilitate a similar relief and prevent coercive action against their assets. They argued for the infusion of equity and consideration of their genuine willingness to settle, urging the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to allow installment-based settlement, given the prior judicial direction and the company’s inability to adhere to the payment schedule.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the writ petition seeks to circumvent the statutorily mandated SARFAESI process. After default by the principal borrower, the bank rightly initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip was cited to support the principle that High Courts should refrain from intervening in SARFAESI actions except in extraordinary circumstances, and that the petitioner’s petition should be dismissed to uphold the integrity of the statutory framework and the creditor’s rights. The respondents urged the Court to permit the Sarfaesi process to continue unhindered and to deny further interference in the interest of financial stability and lawful recovery.”},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip	2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320	Positive	The Supreme Court decision was invoked to establish the principle that High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226, except in extraordinary circumstances; the Kerala High Court applied this principle in dismissing the writ petition.

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 K. Bhaskaran and Padmavathi L. v. State Bank of India and others 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 C.S.DIAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 28611 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 K. BHASKARAN., AGED 70 YEARS,S/O KUCHUMMINI , RESIDING AT SNEHALAYAM, PUTHIYAVILA P.O, KANDALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690531 2 PADMAVATHI L., AGED 62 YEARS,W/O K. BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT SNEHALAYAM, PUTHIYAVILA P.O, KANDALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690531 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R. ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME MAVELIKKARA BRANCH,BM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 690101 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002), STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024 ADDL.3 K. SUKUMARAN S/O.KOCHUMMINI,AGED 78YEARS,LEKSHMIPRIYA, PUTHIYAVILA (P.O.), KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA- 690531 (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.05.2023 IN I.A. 1/2023 IN WP(C) 28611/2022 ) BY ADVS. SHRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI DINOOP P.D. GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B.** WPC No.28611 of 2022 2 **ANANDA PADMANABHAN UTHARA A.S VIVEK NAIR P. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) NIDHI BALACHANDRAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC No.28611 of 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2023** The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay off the outstanding amount in instalments and regularize the loan account. 2. The petitioners case is that, they had stood as guarantors for a cash credit loan facility availed by M/s.Lakshmi Copra Trading Company (in short, 'Company'), from the 1[st] respondent – Bank. As the principal borrower had committed default in payment of the instalments, the bank had proceeded against the properties of the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners are prepared to pay off the loan amount in instalments. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had permitted the company to pay the outstanding amount in eighteen monthly instalments. But, the Company failed to avail the benefit. Now, the 1[st] WPC No.28611 of 2022 4 respondent bank is proceeding against the secured assets. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.C.S Manu the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 4. 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 SARFAESI Act, has categorically declared the law 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WPC No.28611 of 2022 5 5. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, it can be gathered that, by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had permitted the Company to pay off the outstanding amount in eighteen equated monthly instalments, which the company has failed to comply with. In the above conspectus, this Court is not inclined to again exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, the petitioners would be at liberty to invoke their statutory remedies under the Act. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. Sd/- ## **C. S. DIAS** ## **JUDGE** AP/07-06 WPC No.28611 of 2022 6 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28611/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P-1|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF SANCTION /| ||LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT DATED 27-7-2018| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO M/S LAKSHMI| ||COPRA TRADING COMPANY| |Exhibit P-2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF THE| ||SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED 27-7-2021 ISSUED| ||BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS| |Exhibit P-3|TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE U/S| ||13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED 11-| ||11-2021 CLAIMING AN AMOUNT OF| ||RS.4,97,29,761/- (RUPEES FOUR CRORE NINETY| ||SEVEN LAKHS TWENTY NINE THOUSAND AND SEVEN| ||HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE ONLY) ISSUED BY THE| ||2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS| |Exhibit P-4|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17-3-| ||2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P-5|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2021| ||IN WP(C) NO. 25614 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT| |Exhibit P-6|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 12-8-| ||2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONERS| |Exhibit P-7|TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK OF THE| ||1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD.| ||BEARING CHITTY NO.109/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL| ||NO. 37| |Exhibit P-7(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK OF THE| ||2ND PETITIONER BEARING CHITTY NO.| ||33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.16 ISSUED BY THE| ||KSFE LTD. TO THE 2ND PETITIONER| |Exhibit P-7(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK OF THE| ||2ND PETITIONER BEARING CHITTY NO.| ||6/2022/A/3 AND CHITTAL NO.227 ISSUED BY THE| ||KSFE LTD. TO THE 2ND PETITIONER| |Exhibit P-7(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE| ||NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY| ||NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.11 ISSUED BY| ||THE KSFE LTD.| |Exhibit1 P-7(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE| ||NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY| ||NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.12 ISSUED BY| WPC No.28611 of 2022 7 THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.323 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.324 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.331 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(h) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.346 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(i) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.330 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(j) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF LAKSHMI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 6/2022/A/3 AND CHITTAL NO.228 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. IS PRODUCED - Exhibit P-7(k) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SARASWATI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.4 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(l) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SARASWATI BHASKARAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.5 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(m) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.2 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD - Exhibit P-7(n) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 33/2022/A/1 AND CHITTAL NO.3 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD - Exhibit P-7(o) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 6/2022/A/3 AND CHITTAL NO.226 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(p) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE WPC No.28611 of 2022 8 - NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.354 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD - Exhibit P-7(q) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.357 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-7(r) TRUE COPY OF THE CHITTY PASS BOOK IN THE NAME OF SHARATH CHANDRAN BEARING CHITTY NO. 12/2021/A/4 AND CHITTAL NO.359 ISSUED BY THE KSFE LTD. - Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26-9-2022 ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH FOR HAVING DEPOSITED RS.60 LAKHS WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK THROUGH RTGS - Exhibit P-8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26-9-2022 ISSUED BY THE INDUSIND BANK, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH FOR HAVING REMITTED RS.10 LAKHS WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK THROUGH RTGS - RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Ext.R3(b). A true copy of the plaint and other documents in CMP No 428/23 filed before the District Court (Vacation) Alappuzha dated 08/05/2023 Ext.R3(a) A true copy of the Account Statement of SBI dated 20/09/2016 to 26/06/2020 **TRUE COPY** **P.A.TO JUDGE**