Rajesh K G v UCO Bank; Renjitha R v UCO Bank
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2023-06-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions dismissed. The court held there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify interference under Article 226 and affirmed the bank’s position to pursue statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions dismissed; petitioners may pursue statutory remedies under the SARFAESI framework. The decision notes no extraordinary circumstances to warrant interference.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajesh K G
- Renjitha R
Respondents
- UCO Bank
- The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Anil S.Raj
- • K.N.Rajani
- • Radhika Rajasekharan P.
- • Anila Peter
- • Muhammed Haris K.K.
- • Simi S. Ali
- • Sneha S. Menon
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri H Ramnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 24751/2022 and 24765/2022, are filed by a husband-and-wife duo who availed financial assistance from UCO Bank, secured by an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Both petitioners faced default in instalments due to circumstances beyond their control and are willing to settle the overdue amounts in instalments to regularise their loan accounts. The Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the petitioners sought invocation of the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, seeking continuation or extension of instalment facilities. A prior interim order directed the petitioners to submit a settlement proposal; Rs. 5 lakh was required as a condition, and the Bank later rejected the proposal on 12.04.2023. The petitioners were advised to pursue statutory remedies, and the court noted that the Bank had rejected the OTS proposal. The Hon’ble Court referred to Supreme Court guidance in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw SC 320) and to State Bank of India v. Aravindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2022 KHC 7165), emphasizing restraint in interfering with SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226 except in extraordinary circumstances, and the non-extension of time under OTS per the Kerala decision. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, while preserving the petitioners’ right to pursue remedies under law in accordance with the statute.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Non-interference doctrine: High Courts shall not ordinarily interfere with SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226, except in extraordinary circumstances (South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320)
- Prohibition on extending time under the OTS scheme under Article 226 (State Bank of India v. Aravindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 KHC 7165)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued for extension of the OTS facility and for regularisation of their loan accounts by paying the overdue amounts in instalments under the OTS scheme. They submitted that circumstances beyond their control caused defaults and expressed willingness to comply with a settlement proposal if allowed. They urged the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief.
Contentions of Respondents
The Bank contended that no instalment facility under the OTS could be extended and that the petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies under the SARFAESI framework. It relied on pertinent jurisprudence discouraging judicial interference in SARFAESI proceedings and objected to extending the OTS period or providing relief beyond the statutory scheme.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 | Positive | The Supreme Court decision is cited to support the non-interference principle of High Courts in SARFAESI proceedings under Article 226, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. |
| State Bank of India v. Aravindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 KHC 7165 | Positive | Kerala High Court decision cited to reinforce that High Courts should not extend time under the OTS scheme in writ proceedings under Article 226. |
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 Rajesh K G v UCO Bank; Renjitha R v UCO Bank and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.