Safeer.M.B v Federal Bank Ltd

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ``` RP NO. 611 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2023 IN WP(C) 3435/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## `REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:` ``` SAFEER.M.B AGED 48 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER S, FAIZALMANZIL, NEAR GIRLS HIGH SCOOL, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695541 ``` ``` BY ADV S.NIDHEESH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, LCRD/ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, 4TH FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER., PIN – 685001 ``` ``` 2THE BRANCH MANAGER FEDERAL BANK LTD, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN – 695541 ``` ## `BY ADV SUNIL SHANKER` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` Dated this the 16[th] day of June,2023 ## **O R D E R** The review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed in W.P.(C)No.3435/2022. 2. The petitioner has averred in the review petition that he had filed the writ petition challenging the sale notice issued by the respondents under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(in short, ‘Act’). This Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order dated 04.04.2023. In fact, the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- in March, 2023, and now only the outstanding amount in the overdraft account remains to be paid. The petitioner was unable to comply with the interim order because he was hospitalised for a month as evidenced ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` by Exts P6 & P7 medical reports. Hence, the finding of this Court that the petitioner has not complied with the interim orders is factually incorrect. There is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment. Hence, the review petition. 3. Heard; Sri. S.Nidheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri.Sunil Shanker, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Sri S. Nidheesh, reiterated the contentions in the review petition. He submitted that, it is only because the petitioner was indisposed for a month he was prevented from paying the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.10,00,000/- immediately. Hence, the review petition may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside. ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` 5. Sri.Sunil Shanker, on instructions, submitted that, this Court by order dated 04.04.2023 had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 10.05.2023 and then approach the bank with a proposal to pay the outstanding amount. Not only did the petitioner not pay the ordered amount, but he also went to the Settlement Commissioner of the Bank and caused ruckus in their office. The respondents are not willing to provide any instalment facility to the petitioner. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting its review. Hence, the review petition may be dismissed. 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, ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 04.04.2023, this Court had passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 10.05.2023, and then submit a proposal. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of this Court. 9. It is now the case of the petitioner that, during the relevant period of time he was indisposed, which prevented him from complying with the impugned direction. 10. Even though the interim order was passed on 04.04.2023, directing the petitioner to approach Bank ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` on 10.05.2023, he did not do the same. Neither did he file an application seeking enlargement of the time period nor did he submit before this Court that he was indisposed. 11. Consequently, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 02.06.2023, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court felt that there is no necessity to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court in favour of the petitioner who has failed to comply with the interim directions passed by this Court. Furthermore, in the light of the law laid down in **South Indian Bank Ltd** (supra), it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the contractual matters, especially since proceedings have already been initiated under the Act. There is no error apparent on the face of the judgment, warranting the ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` review of the impugned judgment. The review petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/16.06.23 //True copy// P.A.To Judge ``` R.P.No.611/2023 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE HOSPITAL BILL ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL ```