High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-03-28Petition disposed; the petition is allowed to t...

P.V.P. BABU and K. MAHIJA v Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd and The Authorized Officer, Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8677 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed with a direction to pay Rs.2,16,324/- (as on 28.02.2019) in eight equal monthly installments commencing from 29.04.2019, in addition to regular EMIs, so that the loan account is regularised. A default will cancel the benefit and allow the Bank to proceed with SARFAESI measures from the current date. Directions are peremptory and non‑extendable except in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners are foreclosed from challenging the SARFAESI measures before any other forum if they fail to comply.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed; the petition is allowed to the extent of permitting instalment payment plan as described, with strict compliance and consequences for default; final disposition hinges on the payment plan and regularisation of the loan account under SARFAESI proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.V.P. BABU
K. MAHIJA

Respondents

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Balagopalan
• P. Seena
• A. Rajagopalan
• M. N. Manmadan
• M. S. Imthiyaz Ahammed

Counsels for Respondents

• P. C. Sasidharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges actions taken by the Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners contend irregularity or illegality in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank and seek relief to avoid immediate enforcement measures, requesting the opportunity to repay overdue amounts in installments. The High Court, while hearing the petition, emphasizes its jurisdictional constraint: it cannot entertain the legality or merits of the impugned orders under the SARFAESI framework, citing binding principles from the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and from Mathew K.C. v. State Bank of Travancore. The court thus refrains from adjudicating the merits of the bank’s actions but entertains the petitioners’ request for a workable settlement given financial hardship. The Bank’s counsel stresses that recovery is the Bank’s primary objective and that speedy liquidation of debt minimizes litigation. Balancing these interests, the court grants a limited concession: the overdue amount of Rs. 2,16,324 as on 28.02.2019 shall be paid in eight equal monthly installments commencing from 29.04.2019, in addition to regular EMIs, with the loan account to be regularised upon timely compliance. The directions are peremptory, with strict consequences for non‑compliance, and the petition is disposed accordingly in terms favorable to settlement while preserving SARFAESI integrity.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought relief from immediate SARFAESI enforcement and urged leniency to enable payment of the overdue amount in installments, aiming to regularise the loan account and avoid protracted litigation. They emphasized hardship and requested a feasible repayment plan consistent with the bank’s recovery interests.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank’s counsel argued that the primary objective is recovery and quick resolution; extended litigation or delay would undermine recovery. The Bank suggested a practical approach consistent with SARFAESI safeguards and the petitioners’ ability to repay, stressing that any relief should not compromise debt recovery or lead to protraction of proceedings.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate binding principles limiting judicial review of SARFAESI orders; not applied or distinguished in the decision.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.	2018 (1) KLT 784	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the jurisprudential backdrop; no detailed application or distinguishing of its holdings in the judgment.

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 P.V.P. BABU and K. MAHIJA v Kozhikode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd and The Authorized Officer, Kozhikode 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 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 8677 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 P.V.P.BABU, AGED 53 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, PUTHIYOTTUMKANDI MEETHAL HOUSE CHORODE EAST P.O,., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673106.** **2 K.MAHIJA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O P.V.P. BABU, PUTHIYOTTUMKANDI MEETHAL HOUSE, CHORODE EAST P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 106.** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SMT.P.SEENA SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,NO.F1635 HEAD OFFICE (RECOVERY SECTION), P.B.NO.503, KALLAYI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.** **2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.B.NO.503, KALLAYI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002.** **BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 8677/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Through this writ petition, the petitioners call 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 petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners 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** WPC 8677/19 3 **of India v. 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 petitioners on its merits. 4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them 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 petitioners 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 WPC 8677/19 4 legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay 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 petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them 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 petitioners can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.2,16,324/- as on 28.02.2019 in not more than eight instalments commencing from 29.04.2019 WPC 8677/19 5 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners are agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioners to pay off the amount in the manner as afore. 9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of **Rs.2,16,324/-** as on **28.02.2019** , along with applicable charges and interest, in **eight** equal monthly instalments commencing from **29.04.2019.** They shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if WPC 8677/19 6 there is any default in making the payment as directed above, the benefit granted under this judgment would stand vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to recover the entire liability from the petitioners 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 petitioners will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment and they 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 WPC 8677/19 7 Court. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 8677/19 8 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |PETITIONER'S/S|EXHIBITS:| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.695/16-| ||IND/DL DATED 19.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE| ||IST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE| ||PETITIONERS.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE| ||BEARING NO.HO/R.CELL/SARFAESI/7816/| ||VTKCONRD/CLD.20446/2018-19 DATED| ||5.6.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2)| ||OF SARFAESI ACT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP DATED| ||19.11.2018 OF THE IST RESPONDENT| ||BANK.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING| ||NO.HO/R.CELL/SARFAESI/7816/VTKCONRD/C| ||LD.20446/2018-19 DATED 22.2.2019.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION MADE BY| ||THE IST RESPONDENT BANK IN| ||MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 28.2.2019.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||5.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS| ||TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT| ||ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS| ||EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P6| ||REPRESENTATION.|