Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed; instalment-based relief...

Sesil Joseph v. Authorized Officer, Axis Bank Limited

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019(M)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2019-09-02
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed: the petitioner is permitted to repay the overdue amount of Rs.3,14,972 as of 31.08.2019 in eight equal monthly installments commencing 30.09.2019, along with regular EMIs. Upon timely payment, the loan account will be regularised and the petitioner can service the account per the loan terms. Any default will vacate the benefit and empower the bank to continue recovery. Directions are peremptory and no further extensions will be allowed except in exceptional circumstances.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed; instalment-based relief granted and account to be regularised on timely payment; default clause preserves bank’s recovery rights; no further extensions ordinarily allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sesil Joseph

Respondents

  • Authorized Officer, Axis Bank Limited, Retain Asset Centre

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • N.K. Mohanlal
  • • Abhinesh C.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Paulochan Antony, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by Axis Bank against Sesil Joseph for recovery of an overdue loan. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the petition, acknowledges its jurisdictional limitation to scrutinize the legality of the impugned orders under the statutory SARFAESI framework and binding precedent. Relying on Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and later Mathew, the court reiterates that merits of the bank’s actions fall outside the writ court’s remit, preserving the prerogative of the statutory regime. Notwithstanding the jurisdictional bar, the court considers a compassionate, pragmatic remedy: the petitioner seeks a facility to repay the arrears in installments to avoid protracted litigation and immediate enforcement. The bank concedes that recovery is the objective but recognizes the value of a timely settlement. After evaluating financial constraints and the need for prompt resolution, the court grants the petitioner eight equal monthly installments to clear the overdue amount of Rs. 3,14,972 as of 31.08.2019, beginning 30.09.2019, along with regular EMI payments. The loan account would be regularised upon timely payment; any default would nullify the benefit and permit continued recovery. The directions are explicit and non‑extendable, reinforcing the bank’s recovery rights while offering a structured path to compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act)Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Jurisdictional bar: court cannot examine merits under SARFAESI Act
  • Peremptory directions
  • Binding judicial pronouncements
  • Reliance on Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Mathew for the framework of SARFAESI jurisprudence

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner pressed for indulgence in the form of a structured payment plan to settle the outstanding dues, highlighting financial constraints and the hardship of protracted litigation. He urged that eight instalments of the overdue amount, supplemented by regular EMIs, would enable timely discharge of the debt while preserving court resources. The relief sought would facilitate rehabilitation of the loan account without immediate foreclosure, aligning the debtor’s interests with the bank’s recovery priorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank contended that recovery of dues is the primary objective and that investigations should progress in a timely manner. The bank was prepared to consider instalment-based resolution but emphasized that the writ court cannot adjudicate merits and will adhere to the SARFAESI regime and binding precedents. The bank indicated flexibility by agreeing to eight instalments contingent on instalment payments and regular EMI discipline, with non‑compliance triggering restoration of the original recovery process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon((2010) 8 SCC 110)PositiveCited as binding precedent establishing the court’s jurisdictional limits under SARFAESI and guiding the approach to merits review.
Authorised Officer, SBT v. MathewILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479PositiveFollowed to support the same jurisdictional stance and the treatment of SARFAESI proceedings, reinforcing the inability to review merits in the writ petition.

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 Sesil Joseph v. Authorized Officer, Axis Bank Limited 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 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 11TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SESIL JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, 6/359, KONDODY HOUSE, OPP.THEVANAL CHURCH, VETTIKKAL P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR, MULANTHURUTY, COCHIN-682 314.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL SHRI.ABHINESH C.S.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **AUTHORISED OFFICER, AXIS BANK LIMITED, RETAIN ASSET CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNKAULAM, PIN-682 035.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** -2- **JUDGMENT** Through this writ petition, the petitioner calls 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner 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 ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** -3- 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 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 petitioner on its merits. 4. However, obviously being aware of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or latitude in order to enable him to pay off the overdue amounts in installments. 5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** request on the part of the petitioner 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 and that if the petitioner pays 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 petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing him an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts demanded by the Bank. ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** -5- 7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioner can be allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.3,14,972/-, as on 31.08.2019 in not more than eight instalments commencing from 30.09.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank and therefore that the writ petition may be ordered granting permission to the petitioner to pay off the amount in the manner as afore. 9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.3,14,972/- as on 31.08.2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in eight equal monthly instalments commencing from 30.09.2019 **.** He shall also, in ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioner, his loan account would stand regularised and he 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 petitioner 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 petitioner will have to comply with the same meticulously. I caution the petitioner that no further requests for extension or modification of this judgment, ## **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** -7- save in exceptional circumstances, will be permitted and that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions herein, he will lose the benefit of this judgment. This writ petition is thus ordered. **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SJ **WP(C).No.23730 OF 2019** -8- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT DATED 16.08.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 22.08.2019 ISSUED BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO RESPONDENT.**