High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-04Writ petitions disposed of with an installment-...

Susamma Abraham and Abraham K.A. v. Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd and Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 41809 of 2018; WP(C).No. 41847 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-01-04
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are disposed by directing the petitioners to pay the total outstanding amounts in eighteen equal monthly installments beginning 15.02.2019, along with applicable charges and interest. A default would render the benefit vacated and empower the Bank to resume the proceedings and recover the liability from the current stage. The directions are peremptory and no extension requests will be permitted.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with an installment-based settlement order; directions to pay in 18 installments; peremptory and non-extendable, with recovery rights reserved in case of default.**

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Susamma Abraham
Abraham K.A.

Respondents

Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No.3260, Head Office, Eraviperoor, 689542
Tiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No.3260, Eraviperoor, Kumbanad Branch, 689547

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Pramoj Abraham
• Sri. K.A. Anish

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Nisha George
• Sri. Vishnu B. Kurup (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitions challenge SARFAESI-driven recovery proceedings initiated by two co-operative banks against the petitioners. The High Court, while recognizing its limited jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of orders under the SARFAESI Act, cites Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew to emphasise that merits of the SBAERSAI actions are not for inquiry in these writ petitions. Nevertheless, the court acknowledges the petitioners’ financial distress and the banks’ interest in recovery. The petitioners seek leniency in payment by allowing installments to clear the total outstanding dues; the bank’s counsel, while emphasizing recovery, agrees that if settlement is possible it could be beneficial. After hearing both sides, the court indicates it is inclined to permit a settlement by allowing the petitioners to repay the total due in eighteen equal monthly installments starting from 15 February 2019, including applicable charges and interest. The court also makes it explicit that any default will vacate the benefit and empower the Bank to continue with the SARFAESI proceedings from the present stage. The directions are peremptory and no extensions will be entertained. The petitions are disposed accordingly, with a clear emphasis on timely compliance and safeguarding the bank’s recovery interests within the statutory framework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial restraint in SARFAESI matters; court will not adjudicate merits due to statutory constraints and binding precedents (Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contended for a sympathetic relief under the SARFAESI framework, seeking permission to repay the total outstanding dues in installments due to financial hardship, rather than facing coercive recovery through the usual SARFAESI machinery. They urged that a structured installment plan would facilitate recovery while avoiding further litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

Bank counsel emphasized the Bank’s primary interest in early recovery and recovery of dues, and indicated willingness to consider an installment-based settlement if it ensures full payment, while keeping in view the Bank’s recovery rights.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Positive	Cited as a binding Supreme Court precedent restricting merits-review in SARFAESI-related challenges; relied upon to justify jurisdictional limits.
Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew	ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479	Positive	Followed as a binding authority aligning with the principle that merits are not for consideration in such writ petitions; reinforces the above constraint.

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 Susamma Abraham and Abraham K.A. v. Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd and Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd 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 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940** # **WP(C).No. 41809 of 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 SUSAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O ABRAHAM,, AGED 56, KOZHIMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDAMALA P.O., PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **2 ABRAHAM K.A., S/O KOSHY, AGED 58, KOZHIMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDAMALA P.O., PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM SRI.K.A.ANISH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3260 HEAD OFFICE, ERAVIPEROOR-689 542 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.** - **2 TIRUVELLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3260 ERAVIPEROOR, KUMBANAD BRANCH-689 547 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.** **BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).41847/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 41809 & 41847/18 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 41847 of 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 ABRAHAM K.A, S/O. KOSHY, AGED 58, KOZHIMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDAMALA P.O., PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** - **2 SUSAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 56, KOZHIMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDAMALA P.O., PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM SRI.K.A.ANISH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3260, HEAD OFFICER ERAVIPEROOR REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER - 689 542.** - **2 TIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260, ERAVIPEROOR, KUMBANAD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - 689547.** **BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI. VISHNU B. KURUP-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).41809/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 41809 & 41847/18 3 ## **W.P.(C)Nos.41809 & 41847 of 2018** ## **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 these writ petitions, 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 these writ petitions 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 petitioners on its merits. WPC 41809 & 41847/18 4 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 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 these writ petitions allowing them an opportunity to pay off the entire amounts demanded by the Bank. WPC 41809 & 41847/18 5 7. The learned counsel for the Bank at this time submits that the petitioners can be allowed to pay off the total outstanding, which are stated to be Rs.17,97,838/- as on 26.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No. 41809/2018 and Rs.16,93,280/- as on 26.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No. 41847/2018, along with other charges and interest, in not more than eighteen instalments commencing from 15.02.2019 in each case. 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. In such circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay off the aforementioned amounts in eighteen equal monthly instalments commencing from 15.02.2019 in each case, along with applicable charges and interest. It goes without saying that if there is any default in making the payments 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 WPC 41809 & 41847/18 6 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 from challenging the measures/proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, which are impugned in these writ petitions, before any other alternative Forum or Court. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv WPC 41809 & 41847/18 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41809/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.** /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE WPC 41809 & 41847/18 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41847/2018** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.** /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE