Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of

ShyLaja Justin v. Union Bank of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019(J)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2019-08-30
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.4,33,000 (as on 30.08.2019) in ten equal monthly instalments starting 30.09.2019, in addition to regular EMIs and accrued charges/interest. If timely paid, the loan account will be regularised and serviced per the loan terms. A default will vacate the benefit and allow the bank to recover the entire liability by continuing the proceedings from the current stage. The directions are peremptory and no further extensions will be ordinarily granted except in exceptional circumstances.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ShyLaja Justin, W/o. Justine Joseph, Aichirakalayil House, Eravimangalam P.O., Muttichira, Kottayam District, PIN-686613

Respondents

  • M/S. Union Bank of India, Kaduthuruthy Branch, Kottayam District-686604, represented by its Chief Manager

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri J Abhilash

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C).No.23494 of 2019) challenging proceedings initiated by the Union Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. The court notes its jurisdiction is limited by statute and binding precedents, and therefore it cannot enter a merits-based examination of the impugned orders. The petitioner, ShyLaja Justin, argues for relief and leniency to regularise the loan account, while the bank seeks timely recovery. Though the court cannot adjudicate the legality of the bank’s action on merits, it recognizes the petitioner’s financial hardship and the bank’s interest in recovery. After evaluating the parties’ positions, the court agrees to a structured settlement: the petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,33,000 (as on 30.08.2019) in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 30.09.2019, in addition to regular EMIs and accrued charges/interest. If payments are made as directed, the loan account will be regularised and serviced per the loan terms; any default would nullify the benefit and permit the bank to continue recovery. The directions are peremptory and no further extensions will be ordinarily granted, save exceptional circumstances. The writ petition is disposed accordingly, with the petitioner obliged to comply strictly with the order.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for leniency to repay the overdue amount in installments, seeks an opportunity to regularise the loan, and asks the Court to exercise jurisdiction prudently in view of the financial constraints and to consider a payment plan that could expedite recovery while avoiding institutional liquidation through protracted litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank’s counsel (for the respondent bank) submits that recovery is the primary objective and the bank is prepared to consider a structured repayment plan if it results in faster recovery; the bank emphasizes that it would be in its interest if the debtor clears dues promptly, and agrees to discussions on instalments within the bank’s constraints.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon(2010) 8 SCC 110Mentioned OnlyCited as binding authority relevant to the court’s jurisdiction in SARFAESI matters, but the judgment explicitly states it cannot entertain merits and therefore does not apply its substantive propositions to decide the case.
Authorised Officer, SBT v. MathewILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479Mentioned OnlyCited as follow-up precedent acknowledging the controlling judgments in SARFAESI matters; used to anchor the principle of limited jurisdiction and reliance on binding precedents rather than merits.

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 ShyLaja Justin v. Union Bank of India 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 FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019(J)** **PETITIONER:** **SHYLAJA JUSTIN AGED 42 YEARS W/O.JUSTINE JOSEPH, AICHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM.P.O., MUTTICHIRA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686613.** **BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH** ## **RESPONDENT:** **M/S.UNION BANK OF INDIA, KADUTHURUTHI BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686604, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.23494 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 ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** 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 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 ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** -4- in installments. 5. I, therefore, enquired with the learned counsel for the Bank as to whether the 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 ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** 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. 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.4,33,000/- as on 30.08.2019 in not more than ten instalments commencing from 30.09.2019 and that the account can thus be regularised by the Bank. **==> picture [353 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** 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. ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** -6- 9. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to pay off the aforementioned overdue amount of Rs.4,33,000/-as on 30.08.2019, along with applicable charges and interest, in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 30.09.2019. He shall also, in 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 ## **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** -7- 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, 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. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **==> picture [30 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** SJ **WP(C).No.23494 OF 2019** -8- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.**