RP No. 849 of 2023 in WP(C) No. 20636 of 2023

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945 ``` ``` RP NO. 849 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 20636/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.H. BADHARUDEEN AGED 51 YEARS S/O. HASSANKUTTY.P.A., AGED 51 YEARS, 217/1. AL- BHUSTHAN MAHAL, MAVINAKATTA, KOIPPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671321 BY ADVS. KODOTH SREEDHARAN A.ARUNKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, ZONAL BRANCH, PALARIVATOM BYPASS JUNCTION, VENNALA.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028 2BANK OF MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KASARAGOD BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sri T.A.Prakash ``` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 RP No. 849 of 2023 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------RP No. 849 of 2023 in WP(C) No.20636 of 2023** ## **----------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2023 ORDER** The review petition is filed to review the judgment passed in the above writ petition. The review petitioner was the writ petitioner and the respondents were the respondents in the writ petition. 2. The review petitioner has averred in the memorandum of review petition that, he had availed a housing loan and cash credit facility from the second respondent – Bank. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was unable to pay the instalments on time. The respondents initiated proceedings under the 3 RP No. 849 of 2023 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short, ‘Act’) and declared the loan accounts as nonperforming assets. The review petitioner was prepared to pay the outstanding overdue amount in instalments and requested the Bank to regularise the loan account, since the secured asset is the residential building of the review petitioner. As the respondents were threatening to take physical possession of the secured asset, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. The main prayer in the writ petition was to direct the respondents to regularise the loan account. Although this Court was bound to relegate the review petitioner to work out his statuory remedies following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **South Indian Bank Ltd** 4 RP No. 849 of 2023 **vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320)** , this Court entertained the writ petition by invoking its under Article 226 of the extra-ordinary powers Constitution of India. But, without granting sufficient time to the review petitioner to pay the defaulted amount in instalments, this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the review petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in six equated monthly instalments on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have suppressed the guidelines promulgated by the Reserve Bank of India on the regularisation of loans. The disposal of the writ petition on the above lines, after recording the concession of the review petitioner, has caused prejudice to the review petitioner because he 5 RP No. 849 of 2023 could not highlight the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Even though the review petitioner filed WA No.1389/2023 before this Court, the Division Bench relegated the petitioner to file the review petition. In view of the interdiction made by this Court in clause No.(iv) of the operative portion of the judgment, the petitioner is precluded from seeking any further relief against the respondents. The review petitioner is now left remediless. This Court has in **M.J Betty and Ors vs. Union of India** [ 2007 (4) KHC 735 (SN)] and **Elavakkattu Ceramics vs. Authorised Officer, Standard Chartered Bank** [ 2015 (1) KLT 419] has held that when the arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower, then the loan account should not be treated as a non-performing asset. The review 6 RP No. 849 of 2023 petitioner is deprived of an opportunity to pay off the outstanding dues and get out of the purview of nonperforming asset. Hence, the review petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be recalled. 3. Heard: Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri. T.A Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The review petitioner’s principal grievance is that the respondents have not granted him the benefit of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, which has been extracted in **Elavakattu Ceramics** (supra) and reads as follows: “19. Para 4.2.4 requires the Bank to upgrade loan accounts classified as NPAs and the said paragraph is extracted below: 7 RP No. 849 of 2023 “4.2.4 Upgradation of loan accounts classified as NPAs. If arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of loan accounts classified as NPAs, the account should no longer be treated as non performing and may be classified as ‘standard’ accounts. With regard to upgradation of a restructured/rescheduled account which is classified as NPA contents of paragraphs 4.2.14 and 4.2.15 will be applicable”. The obligation of the Bank to upgrade loan accounts has been reiterated by the Reserve Bank of India in subsequent circulars as well.” 5. On a careful reading of the memorandum of writ petition reveals that the review petitioner had not raised the above contentions in the writ petition. Instead, the review petitioner’s prayer was to direct the respondents to regularise the loan account. 6. When the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the offer made by the learned 8 RP No. 849 of 2023 counsel appearing for the respondents and conceded that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay off the outstanding amount in six equated monthly instalments. It was on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the parties and to provide the petitioner one last opportunity to clear off the liability, this Court exercised its extra-ordinary plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertained the writ petition, which is permissible going by the law laid down in **Naveen Mathew Philip** (supra). 7. It is after the disposal of the writ petition, that the petitioner has got enlightened about the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and now desires that this Court directs the respondents to give him the benefit of the guidelines through this review petition. 9 RP No. 849 of 2023 8. It is trite, a review petition is not an appeal in disguise. 9. The grounds that have been pleaded in the review petition were never raised in the writ petition. Therefore, it can never be contended that this Court had not considered the present grounds. Thus, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised in the memorandum of the review petition are untenable. There is no error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting its review. The review petition is meritless and only liable to be dismissed. ## Resutlantly, the review petition is dismissed. ## SD/- sks/18.9.2023 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 10 RP No. 849 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 849/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.1389/2023 DATED 07/08/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE ```