Sam Varghese and Susan Sam v. Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd and Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 3136 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**SAM VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**S/O.VARGHESE, PAZHUMANNIL HOUSE,**| ||**MANGARAM, KONNI.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691.**| |**2**|**SUSAN SAM, W/O.SAM VARGHESE,**| ||**PAZHUMANNIL HOUSE, MANGARAM,**| ||**KONNI.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR**| ||**SRI.R.RANJITH**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,**| |---|---| ||**PANACHAKKAL TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, KONNI,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689691.**| |**2**|**THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,**| ||**THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,**| ||**THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689107.**| ||**BY ADV.**| ||**SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE-SC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 3136/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Through this writ petition, the petitioners call into question 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. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners herein, 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.** WPC 3136/19 3 **Satyawati Tondon** ((2010) 8 SCC 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 notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioners may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable them to pay off the overdue 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 WPC 3136/19 4 learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay off the 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 overdue amounts demanded by the Bank. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, Sri. George Varghese, submits that there are two housing loans involved in this case; one of which can be regularised, while the other will have to be closed by the petitioners. He says that the overdues in the first Housing Loan as on 31.01.2019, is Rs. 4,00,097/- and that the WPC 3136/19 5 total outstanding in the second Housing Loan is Rs.4,13,400/-, also as on 31.01.2019. He says that if the petitioners pay off the afore total amount of Rs.8,13,497/-, in not more than eight instalments, the first loan can be regularised and the second loan can be closed. 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. I, therefore, direct the petitioners to pay **Rs.8,13,497/-,** in **eight** equal monthly instalments commencing from **05.03.2019,** in which event, the first Housing Loan will stand regularised and the second will stand closed. The petitioners will also have to pay the regular EMIs in the first Housing Loan, namely the account to be regularised, without fail from WPC 3136/19 6 February 2019. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. 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 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 and they will also be foreclosed WPC 3136/19 7 from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 3136/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19/01/2019 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/01/2019 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.