High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions dismissed; petitioners may pursu...

Rajesh K G v UCO Bank; Renjitha R v UCO Bank

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 24751/2022 & 24765/2022

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

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002)Article 226, Constitution of IndiaSection 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002

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 NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320PositiveThe 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 7165PositiveKerala 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

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 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.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 24751 OF 2022` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` RAJESH K G, S/O. K.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS ``` ``` KARALATH HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682017 ``` ``` BY ADVS.ANIL S.RAJ K.N.RAJANI RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. ANILA PETER MUHAMMED HARIS K.K. SIMI S. ALI SNEHA S. MENON ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1UCO BANK, HAVING AN OFFICE AT A.S.PLAZA, NEAR PUMP JUNCTION, TRICHUR ROAD, KODUNGALOOR THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 680664 ``` ``` 2THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK, A.S.PLAZA, NEAR PUMP JUNCTION, TRICHUR ROAD, KODUNGALOOR THRISSUR, PIN - 680664 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SRI H RAMANAN` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).24765/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 24765 OF 2022` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RENJITHA R, W/O. RAJESH, AGED 48 YEARS KARALATH HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682017 ``` ``` BY ADVS.ANIL S.RAJ K.N.RAJANI RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. ANILA PETER MUHAMMED HARIS K.K. SIMI S. ALI SNEHA S. MENON ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1UCO BANK, HAVING AN OFFICE AT A.S.PLAZA, NEAR PUMP JUNCTION, TRICHUR ROAD, KODUNGALOOR THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 680664 ``` ``` 2THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UCO BANK, A.S.PLAZA, NEAR PUMP JUNCTION, TRICHUR ROAD, KODUNGALOOR THRISSUR, PIN – 680664 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SRI H RAMANAN` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).24751/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 27[th] day of June,2023 ## **C O M M O N J U D G M E N T** The writ petitions are filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners in the two writ petitions to pay off the overdue amount in equated monthly instalments and regularise the loan accounts. 2. The petitioners in the two writ petitions are husband and wife. They had availed financial assistance from the first respondent – Bank – by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Due to reasons beyond their control, they could not pay the instalments on time. The respondents have now proceeded against the secured asset of the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘Act’). The petitioners are prepared to pay off the overdue amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition. ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` 3. When the writ petitions came up for consideration on 20.02.2023, this Court passed a conditional order and directed the petitioners to submit a proposal before the Bank for settlement of the dues. The first respondent was directed to consider the application to extend the One Time Settlement(OTS) scheme to the petitioners, subject to the condition that they deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Heard; Sri.Anil S.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.H.Ramanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Today, when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration, Sri.H.Ramanan, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 20.02.2023, the petitioners had submitted a proposal to avail the OTS scheme. The Bank after considering the said proposal, rejected the same on 12.04.2023. ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` The Bank is not willing to extend any instalment facility to the petitioners. The petitioners may be relegated to exhaust their statutory remedies. 6. 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 Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extraordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In **State Bank of India v. Aravindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd.** [2022 KHC 7165], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the High Courts shall not extend the time period under the OTS scheme in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` 8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and taking note of the fact that the Bank has already rejected the proposal submitted by the petitioners to avail the OTS scheme, I do not find any extra-ordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies as provided 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** DST/27.06.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24751/2022` |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT-P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER FROM 05.03.2019 TO 11.01.2022`| ||`BEARING ACCOUNT NO. A/C. NO.29070510002278`| |`EXHIBIT-P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER FROM 05.03.2019 TO 21.03.2022`| ||`BEARING A/C. NO.29070610027301`| |`EXHIBIT-P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE`| ||`PETITIONER FROM 01.12.2020 TO 06.01.2022`| ||`BEARING A/C. NO.29070610036570`| |`EXHIBIT-P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13`| ||`(2) OF THE SARFESI ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED`| ||`10.11.2021`| |`EXHIBIT-P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE`| ||`ZONAL OFFICE ADDRESS DATED 17.01.2022`| |`EXHIBIT-P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED`| ||`05.04.2022`| |`EXHIBIT-P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13`| ||`(2) OF THE SARFESI ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE`| ||`2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED`| ||`5.4.2022`| |`EXHIBIT-P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE`| ||`ZONAL OFFICE ADDRESS DATED 07.06.2022`| |`EXHIBIT-P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE AFFIXED`| ||`BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER'S`| ||`RESIDENCE DATED 18.7.2022`| ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24765/2022` - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01.12.2020 TO 06.01.2022 BEARING ACCOUNT NO. A/C. NO.29070610032831` ``` EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 22.04.2020 TO 21.03.2022 BEARING A/C. NO.29070610036457 EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 23.06.2020 TO 21.03.2022 BEARING A/C. NO.29070610038444 EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFESI ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.11.2021 EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ZONAL OFFICE ADDRESS DATED 17.01.2022 EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05.04.2022 EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFESI ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05.04.2022 EXHIBIT-P8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ZONAL OFFICE ADDRESS DATED 07.06.2022 EXHIBIT-P9TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18.7.2022 AFFIXED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE ``` ``` W.P.(C)Nos.24751 & 24765/2023 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MC. 36/23 FILED BEFORE THE CJM COURT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.24/4/23 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT TO THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL ```