High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions to decid...

Turbo Intertrade Company India (P) Ltd v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.M. Badar
Judgment Date
2020-12-09
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondents 4 and 5 (CSB) to consider and decide Ext.P13 dated 22.08.2020 within one month from the date of judgment. The court held that there was no merit in quashing Ext.P14 and that the secured creditor’s action under SARFAESI could proceed, citing Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew KC. It emphasized the need to decide the pending Ext.P13 application in a time-bound manner while not interfering with lawful SARFAESI actions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions to decide Ext.P13 within one month; no interference with Ext.P14; SARFAESI action permitted to proceed as per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Turbo Intertrade Company India (P) Ltd

Respondents

  • Union of India
  • Secretary, Financial Services (Banking Division), DARP&G
  • Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
  • The Managing Director, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
  • The Additional General Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
  • The Authorised Officer and Chief Manager (Legal), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Ernakulam Zonal Office
  • The Chief Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy
  • • Sri. V. Subhash Bhat
  • • Sri. Ebin Mathew
  • • Sri. P. Rohit Premanandan Shenoy
  • • Sri. Silesh S. Prabhu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. N.S. Dayasindhu
  • • Shree Hari
  • • Sri. Viju Abraham
  • • Smt. Roshni Manuel
  • • Smt. Varna Manoj

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a debtor, filed Writ Petition (Civil) challenging Ext.P14 dated 25.08.2020 under the SARFAESI Act and sought a declaration that its account should not be classified as an NPA, contending the RBI norms are being breached. It also sought directions to the secured creditor to consider and decide Ext.P13, an application for loan restructuring submitted in 2020. The petitioner argued substantial payments had been made during an interregnum, leaving only about Rs. 16,00,000 outstanding, which it claimed could be cleared within one year. Ext.P13 remains pending before respondents 4 and 5 (CSB), and the petitioner urged that the restructuring be approved as requested. The respondent bank countered that the overdraft facility had not been renewed due to governance disputes among the directors, resulting in the account being classified as NPA; it stated that full repayment within four months could lead to a restructuring consideration. The court noted that Ext.P14 communicates action under Section 13 of SARFAESI and held that interference with the secured creditor’s action under SARFAESI is not warranted, citing the apex court’s decision in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew KC (2018(1) KLT 784). However, it disposed the petition with a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to decide Ext.P13 within one month from the judgment date, thus balancing enforcement rights with relief sought.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that despite the interregnum period, substantial repayments were made and only Rs. 16 lakh remained, which could be cleared in about a year. It contended Ext.P13 seeking loan restructuring should be considered and Ext.P14 should not result in immediate SARFAESI action. The applicant asserted that due process and RBI norms require fair treatment and sought the bank’s favorable action on Ext.P13.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank argued that restructuring could be considered only if the entire amount is paid within four months. It stated that the overdraft facility was not renewed due to internal director disputes, leading to the account being categorized as NPA. It urged adherence to due process under SARFAESI and suggested that Ext.P13 be decided promptly if the required conditions are met.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another v. Mathew KC2018(1) KLT 784PositiveThe court relied on this apex court decision to justify non-interference with SARFAESI actions by the secured creditor.

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 Turbo Intertrade Company India (P) Ltd v Union of India and others 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 A.M.BADAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M/S TURBO INTERTRADE COMPANY INDIA(P) LTD. NO. 42/2150 A, PROVIDENCE ROAD, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM, 682 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. PROMODKUMAR, K P AGED 37 S/O. PADMANABHAN .K.** **BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.V.SUBHASH BHAT SRI.EBIN MATHEW SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY SHRI.SILESH S. PRABHU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110 011.** - **2 THE SECRETARY,FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING DIVISION), DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANDAD MARG, POLICE COLONY, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 001.** - **3 THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, ROOM NO. 356A, UDYOG BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI 110 011.** - **4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, CSB BHAVAN, P.B. NO. 502, ST. MARYS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020.** - **5 THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD NO.33, DEIVANAYAGOM COMPLEX, VENKOT NARAYAN ROAD, T NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 057.** - **6 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHEIF MANAGER (LEGAL), THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM ZONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO. 1154, DJM BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011.** WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 2 **7 THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, BENERJI ROAD BRANCH, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PALATHODE, BANJERI ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 014.** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI R6 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM R6 BY ADV. SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL R6 BY ADV. SMT.VARNA MANOJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 9th day of December 2020** The writ petition is filed by the debtor, challenging Ext.P14 letter dated 25.08.2020, apart from claiming a declaration that classification of account of the petitioner as _Non Performing Asset_ is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner is also praying for directing the respondent Bank to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 application filed by the petitioner for restructuring of the loan. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at sufficient length of time. He drew my attention to Exts.P13 as well as P14 documents. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during interregnum, the petitioner has cleared substantial amount taken as a loan and by now, only an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs only) is outstanding. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the existing liability can be cleared by the petitioner within a period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that request made by the petitioner to the Bank vide Ext.P13 application is still pending and the secured creditor, Catholic Syrian Bank can be directed to restructure the loan as WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 4 per the request made by the petitioner, right from the year 2019. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that if the entire amount is agreed to be paid within a period of four months, then the bank may consider the request for restructuring the loan as made. He urged that overdraft facility was granted to the petitioner, but because of dispute between the directors of the petitioner, the said facility was not renewed from time to time rendering the account as NPA. 4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the materials on record. 5. Ext.P10 is the demand notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'), by which the secured creditor, i.e., respondent bank had informed the petitioner as well as the Directors of the petitioner to deposit the balance outstanding amount within the prescribed period of sixty days, failing which possession of the secured assets shall be taken. 6. By Ext.P14 communication dated 25.08.2020 impugned in the present petition, the respondent bank has WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 5 informed the debtor that it has already taken action under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. It is further informed that the debtor had highlighted its inability to run the company consequent to mismanagement and chaos prevailing among the Board of Directors. Vide Ext.P13 communication dated 19.03.2020, the Managing Director of the petitioner Company had requested the respondent bank to approve waiver of charger considering past contribution to the banks bottom-line and facilitate a complete normal closure of account in the credit records so as to pay off the final tranche of payment. By Ext.P13 communication, the petitioner has requested the bank to take favourable action for ensuring continuity of business. 7. It is reported that Ext.P13 application is still pending before respondent Nos.4 and 5. At the same time, it is also seen that action under the SARFAESI Act has also been started by the respondent, secured creditor. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that there no merit in the prayer for quashing Ext.P14 communication, which informs the debtor that action under the SARFAESI Act would follow, if the debts are not cleared. This Court cannot interfere in the action taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act in the light of the judgment of WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of _**Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another**_ vs. _**Mathew K.C**_ (2018(1) KLT 784). However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 can be directed to consider and decide the pending Ext.P13 application as per the provisions of law in a time bound manner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider and decide the Ext.P13 application dated 22.08.2020, within a period of one month from the date of judgment. Sd/- A.M.BADAR ajt JUDGE WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 7 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MSME CERTIFICATE NO KL02B0010697.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EMAIL DATED 18/1/2019 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 11/6/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 30/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 10/9/2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 23/9/2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER .** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 19/9/2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER .** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12/12/2019 IN WPC NO. 27179/2019 HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EMAIL DATED 22/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AND EMAIL DATED 23/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT WITH COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY LETTER DATED 20.7.2020. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EMAIL DATED 20/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE MSME GUIDELINES FORWARDED ON 19/8/2020 ATTACHED.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GUIDELINES FOR CREDIT GUARANTEE SCHEME FOR SUBORDINATE DEBT (CGSSD) FOR STRESSED NPA MSMES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** WP(C).No.19596 OF 2020 8 **EXHIBIT P13** **TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/8/2020 (FIELD BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT) WITH ANNEXURES AND THE RECEIPT.** **EXHIBIT P14** **TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 25/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER'S CASH CREDIT A/C WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT BANK.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA PUBLICATION DATED 23.8.2018.** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RBI PUBLICATION WITH REGARD TO THE CGT MSE IN ITS UDAN WEBSITE.**