Saneesh Chellappan C. and Shainy v. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. and Mahindra Rural Finance Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 10812 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 SANEESH CHELLAPPAN C., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, GURUKULAM, COLONY NO.30, SACHIVOTHAMPURAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM - 686 532.** **2 SHAINY, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.SANEESH, GURUKULAM, COLONY NO.30, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM - 686 532.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 M/S.MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MAHINDRA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, P.K.KURNE CHOWK, WORLI, BOMBAY - 400 018. 2 MAHINDRA RURAL FINANCE LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH, THIRUNAKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, KAITHARAM COMPLEX, UNION CLUB JUNCTION, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR.S-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 10812/19 2 ## **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 110]** and in **Authorised Officer, State Bank** WPC 10812/19 3 **of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018** **(1) KLT 784]** . 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 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 that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest WPC 10812/19 4 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.3,17,176/-** as on 10.04.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than eight instalments commencing from 25.05.2019. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners are agreeable to the WPC 10812/19 5 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 **eight** equal monthly instalments commencing from **25.05.2019** , 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. 10. 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 WPC 10812/19 6 modification of this judgment, save in exceptional circumstances, 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 from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in this writ petition, before any other alternative Forum or Court. 11. After I dictated this judgment, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reminded me that the petitioners have raised various contentions in law and facts and prays that they be directed to give up all these contentions, if they have to avail the benefits of this judgment. **==> picture [361 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners says that his clients expressly give up all contentions, both in law and facts, raised in this writ petition and that they want WPC 10812/19 7 the benefits of this judgment. This is so recorded. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 10812/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MC NO.71/2019 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12/2/2019 IN MC NO.71/19. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14/3/2019 GIVEN TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.