Uppottil Saidy Hamza v. Union of India and Corporation Bank

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-03-26
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed; the petitioners are permitted to pay the total outstanding amount of ₹1,65,73,473/- (as on 06.03.2019) in ten equal monthly installments commencing 20.04.2019, with applicable charges and interest. A default will nullify the concession and allow the Bank to continue recovery under SARFAESI. The directions are peremptory and non-compliance may foreclose further challenge to the Bank’s measures.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed with directions to pay the outstanding in installments; peremptory conditions; potential consequences for non-compliance include loss of relief and continuation of SARFAESI proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Uppottil Saidy Hamza
Shafeer U.H.

Respondents

Union of India
Corporation Bank Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Gopakumar
• T. M. Binitha

Counsels for Respondents

• S.B. Premachandra Prabhu

Case Synopsis & Summary

Uppottil Saidy Hamza and Shafeer U.H., petitioners, approached the Kerala High Court challenging measures taken by Corporation Bank against them under the SARFAESI Act. The court, while conscious of its limited jurisdiction to examine the legality of orders under SARFAESI, refrains from ruling on merits, citing binding precedents—Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) (1) KLT 784—that constrain its ability to adjudicate the legality of the impugned proceedings. Notwithstanding this jurisdictional caveat, the judge engages with a pragmatic request from both sides to facilitate settlement. The petitioners seek leniency to satisfy the total outstanding amount in installments, and the bank acknowledges a preference for recovery over protracted litigation, provided the debt is recovered promptly. After deliberation, the court disposes of the petition by permitting payment of the total dues, currently ₹1,65,73,473/- as on 06.03.2019, in ten equal monthly installments commencing 20.04.2019, with applicable charges and interest. The order is peremptory: a default terminates the advantage and restores the Bank’s ability to pursue full recovery under SARFAESI; non-compliance would bar further challenge to the measures before other forums.

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 petitioners challenge the SARFAESI actions and seek indulgence to settle the debt in installments, arguing for leniency in payment and for relief from immediate, uncompromising enforcement. They urge a consideration of the financial constraints and a practical pathway to settlement, while acknowledging that the court cannot adjudicate the matters on meritsover the impugned orders due to statutory constraints and binding precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank submits that its primary aim is quick and effective recovery. It is willing to permit installment payments to facilitate repayment but insists that the respondent Bank is not inclined to keep the litigation alive indefinitely. It emphasizes the importance of timely payment and asserts that recovery should proceed if the settlement plan fails or if defaults occur.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Mentioned Only	Cited to emphasize binding pronouncements and the jurisdictional limitation on merits review.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.	(2018) (1) KLT 784	Mentioned Only	Cited as binding authority guiding the court on limits of its jurisdiction; not applied to merits in this petition.

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** # **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 9121 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 UPPOTTIL SAIDALY HAMZA, AGED 73 YEARS S/O SAIDALY, PROPRIETOR, M/S UPPOOTTIL TIMBERS, 1/125B MUDICKAL P.O., VAZHAKKULAM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683547, RESIDING AT UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., MARAMBILLI, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-683547.** - **2 SHAFEER U.H., AGED 46 YEARS S/O HAMSA, UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., MARAMBILLI, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-683547.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR SMT.T.M.BINITHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.** - **2 CORPORATION BANK LTD, ANGAMALY BRANCH, 5/422/2, 1ST FLOOR, ST. GEORGE COMPLEX, BANK STOP, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683572, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 9121/19 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 9121/19 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 9121/19 4 and that if the petitioners pay off the total dues quickly, it would be to their interest also. **==> picture [356 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** 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.1,65,73,473/-** as on 06.03.2019, along with other charges and interest, in not more than ten instalments commencing from 20.04.2019. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners are agreeable to the WPC 9121/19 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 **ten** equal monthly instalments commencing from **20.04.2019** , 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. 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 9121/19 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. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 9121/19 7 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS| |---|---| ||FOR THE PERIOD 1.1.2017 TO 31.3.2017| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS| ||FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2017 TO 9.6.2017| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED| ||BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DT 9.10.2018| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE| ||ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 1.11.2018| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT RELEVANT| ||STATEMENT SHOWING DEPOSIT OF RS.15| ||LAKHS ON 29.10.2018| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN| ||WPC.2038/2019 DATED 25.1.2019| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY| ||RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 12.2.2019 IN| ||RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED| ||BY PETITIONERS AS DIRECTED IN EXHIBIT| ||P6| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF ACCOUNT| ||STATEMENT DATED 08.03.2018.| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN| ||WPC.6042/2019 DATED 27.2.2019| |EXHIBIT P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED| ||BY PETITIONERS TO RESPONDENT NO.2| ||DATED 2.3.2019 FOR REGULARIZATION| |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED| ||BY THE PETITIONERS TO RESPONDENT NO.2| ||DATED 2.3.2019 FOR ONETIME SETTLEMENT| |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY| ||RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 6.3.2019| ||AGAINST EXHIBIT P10 AND 11| WPC 9121/19 8 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 23.1.2019 REJECTING THE ONETIME PROPOSAL OF THE PETITIONERS