Rahana v. Punjab National Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940** # **WP(C).No. 3924 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAHANA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. SHILU KAMAL, RESIDING AT HIBA MANZIL, MOODILAVILA, PARAYIL, EDAVA, EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695311.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.G.RADHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VARKALA P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF MANAGER/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER,**| ||**PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE**| ||**OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM.**| **BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 3924/19 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 3924/19 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 her 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 3924/19 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 her an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank. 7. Sri. Santheep Ankarath, The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.7,44,921/- as on 21.02.2019 in not more than ten instalments commencing from 25.03.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner WPC 3924/19 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 off the aforementioned overdue amount of **Rs.7,44,921/-** as on **21.02.2019** , along with applicable charges and interest, in **ten** equal monthly instalments commencing from **25.03.2019.** She shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, her loan account would stand regularised and she 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 and the Bank will be at liberty to WPC 3924/19 6 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, save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, she will lose the benefit of this judgment and she 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. At this time, Sri. G. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission for his client to approach the Bank WPC 3924/19 7 and obtain reconciliation of the accounts since according to him, even the overdue amount as shown above is not correct. This liberty is certainly available to the petitioner and if she makes a proper representation to the Bank after payment of a minimum of five instalments as afore, the Bank will consider her request and reconcile the accounts, if it is so necessary as per law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 3924/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSBOOK IN ACCOUNT. NO.750000NC00000146. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE 5 OF KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 16TH JANUARY 2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE DATED 16TH JANUARY 2019.