OP (DRT) No. 148 of 2018 (Achamma Cherian v. State Bank of India and others)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2019-02-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed; no relief granted to extend pre-deposit under SARFAESI. The High Court notes lack of jurisdiction to modify statutory timeframes and relies on established authority to uphold SARFAESI’s rigid timelines. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the bank for settlement of the account through any permissible route, at the bank’s discretion and under available schemes. The matter is thus closed with no further directions issued except encouragement of settlement discussions.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed; no relief granted for extension of pre-deposit; liberty to pursue settlement with the bank; petition closed without further orders regarding Ext.P13.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Achamma Cherian
Respondents
- State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Travancore) represented by Chief Manager, SME Branch, Kalamassery, Pathadipalram, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024
- Authorized Officer, State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Travancore), SME Branch, Kalamassery, Pathadipalom, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024
- M/S. Feminaro Concepts, Attipetty Nagar, Chembumukku, Kakkanad P.O., Cochin-682 030 represented by Managing Director, Mrs. Meera Joseph
- Meera Joseph, W/o. Rajesh Myladur, Navodaya Road, Kangarapady, Vadacode P.O., Cochin-682 021
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Praveen K. Joy
- • Smt. M.K. Samyuktha
- • Sri. E.S. Saneej
- • Sri. M.P. Unnikrishnan
- • Sri. N. Abhilash
- • Sri. Vishnu.R
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Jithesh Menon-SC
Case Synopsis & Summary
Achamma Cherian, the petitioner, approached this High Court challenging Ext.P9, an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, which refused to grant extension of time for pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT observed that the petitioner's remedy lay not in the Tribunal but possibly at the High Court, prompting the petitioner to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The High Court considers whether it can extend the statutory pre-deposit period, a power not to be exercised lightly given SARFAESI's strict timelines. Relying on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 42, the court emphasizes that statutory prescriptions governing pre-deposit must not be tinkered with. The Court also reiterates its limited jurisdiction in writ petitions challenging DRAT orders, citing Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479), to underscore that relief cannot be granted contrary to statutory constraints. Counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to banks to consider a One Time Settlement (OTS) to avoid further DRAT litigation, but the bank notes that prior OTS benefits were not accepted in time. Ultimately, the Court disposes of the petition, declining relief but granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue settlement with the bank in any manner deemed appropriate.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner seeks extension of the pre-deposit period under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, arguing that the statutory timeframes should not bar a just consideration of her financial difficulties and the potential for a settlement. She also requests the Court to direct the bank to consider a One Time Settlement (OTS) to resolve the matter without further DRAT proceedings, contending that such an option remains available and appropriate for amicable settlement. The petitioner asserts that the DRAT’s remark that relief lies elsewhere should not preclude judicial intervention to facilitate a fair resolution consistent with SARFAESI principles, and she seeks relief that enables a meaningful opportunity to settle the account under an available scheme or policy.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent Bank maintains that the SARFAESI Act imposes strict timelines for pre-deposit which cannot be altered by the High Court. The bank concedes willingness to consider settlement but submits that the prior One Time Settlement benefits were offered previously and, having not accepted within the stipulated period, cannot now be revived. The Bank emphasizes that DRAT orders are governed by statutory timelines and that the petition cannot override those statutory prescriptions. It also argues that extending pre-deposit or altering the timeframes would amount to tinkering with statute, contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent and constitutional principles of jurisdiction. The Bank thus opposes any extension of deposit time and asserts that settlement should be pursued within existing schemes as discretion permits, without granting new relief that contravenes SARFAESI provisions.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp Ltd and others | (2017) 5 SCC 42 | Positive | Cited to emphasize adherence to statutory prescriptions governing pre-deposit and to caution against judicial tinkering with SARFAESI timelines. |
| Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon | (2010) 8 SCC 110 | Positive | Cited to underline jurisdictional limits of High Courts in writ petitions challenging DRAT orders. |
| Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew | ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479 | Positive | Cited to support the principle of jurisdictional constraints in the context of DRAT-related reliefs. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 OP (DRT) No. 148 of 2018 (Achamma Cherian 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.