High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed; directions issued for p...

Raveendran S. and Geetha v. The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and The Authorized Officer, The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2019-03-18
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioners are permitted to pay Rs. 8,04,633/- (as on 15.03.2019) plus charges and interest in 12 equal monthly installments commencing from 16.04.2019. If there is any default, the benefit granted will stand vacated and the Bank may continue with recovery proceedings from the current stage. The directions are peremptory and no further extensions will be permitted.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed; directions issued for payment schedule under SARFAESI with recovery emphasis and cautions against default.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Raveendran S.
  • Geetha W/o Ravindran

Respondents

  • The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
  • The Authorized Officer, The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. SRI.RAJESH K.RAJU

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019) challenges SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. against petitioners Raveendran S. and Geetha. The court immediately acknowledges its jurisdictional limitations under the SARFAESI regime and the binding judicial pronouncements, notably Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, and the Kerala High Court’s subsequent approach in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). While refusing to conduct merits review of the bank’s actions, the judge considers the petitioners’ financial burden and the bank’s recovery interests. The court ultimately opts for a settlement-oriented resolution: the petitioners are directed to pay the total outstanding amount of Rs. 8,04,633 (as on 15.03.2019), plus charges and interest, in 12 equal monthly installments commencing from 16.04.2019. A default would void the granted relief and allow the bank to continue recovery. The directions are peremptory, with a clear warning against requests for extensions. The order reflects a balancing act: upholding the SARFAESI framework while permitting a structured payment plan to expedite recovery and reduce litigation. The petition is disposed accordingly with the bank’s welfare in view.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought leniency and requested permission to pay the total due in installments, citing financial constraints and a desire to settle the liability. They urged the court to allow a structured repayment plan to avoid prolonged litigation and immediate distress, while ensuring full recovery.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank’s counsel argued for swift recovery and indicated willingness to consider a reasonable installment arrangement if it secures timely payment, stressing that recovery interests must prevail. The court balanced these concerns, ultimately opting for a monetary settlement schedule rather than quashing the SARFAESI actions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon(2010) 8 SCC 110PositiveCited as binding authority delineating the limits of judicial review in SARFAESI matters.
Authorised Officer, SBT v. MathewILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479PositiveStated to have been followed by the Kerala High Court, reinforcing the approach to settlement in SARFAESI cases.

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 Raveendran S. and Geetha v. The Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and The Authorized Officer, The Thiruvananthapuram 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** **MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 RAVEENDRAN.S., AGED 54 YEARS S/O SAHADEVAN, GEETHA BHAVAN, KUZHIVILA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK (CSN NO.891, KILIMANOOR BRANCH) 2 SMT. GEETHA W/O RAVINDRAN S., GEETHA BHAVAN, KUZHIVILA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK (CSN NO.891, KILIMANOOR BRANCH) BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001. 2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DISTRICT-695 001.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SC THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. CO.OP BANK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners assail 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. When I deal with this writ petition, 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. Satyawati Tondon** ((2010) 8 SCC **-3-** **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** 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 petitioners on its merits. 4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has prayed that the limitations of as notwithstanding jurisdiction aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them to pay off the total outstanding 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 legal proceedings against such recovery. The learned counsel has fairly submitted **-4-** ## **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the total 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 entire 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 total outstanding, which is stated to be Rs.8,04,633/- (Rupees Eight as on lakh four thousand six hundred and thirty three only) 15.03.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than 12 instalments commencing from 16.04.2019. **-5-** **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** 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 amount in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 16.04.2019, along with applicable charges and interest. 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 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 **-6-** **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioners that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment will be permitted and that if the petitioners fail to comply with the directions herein, they will lose the benefit of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** JS/18.03 **-7-** **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP (FOR CASH/TRANSFER) DATED 31.8.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP (FOR CASH/TRANSFER) DATED 16.11.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P1 C A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP (FOR CASH/TRANSFER) DATED 31.1.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P1 D A TRUE COPY OF THE PAY IN SLIP (FOR CASH/TRANSFER) DATED 21.3.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM DESHABHIMANI NEWSPAPER DATED 13.2.2018 PUBLISHING THE POSSESSION NOTICE.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF RSTATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 17.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM.** **-8-** ## **WP(C).No. 7835 of 2019** **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 14.10.2017 OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KESAVAPURAM. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONERS.**