High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-02-22Writ petition disposed of with directions for p...

Vijayan and Rajini v The Manager, Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Sahakarana Sadabdhi Mandiram, Kovilkathumpadam, Thiruvambady, Thrissur; The Manager, Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank, Evening Branch, Chalakudy

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 5209 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-02-22
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is ordered accordingly: the petitioners are allowed to pay Rs 5,00,000 by 28.03.2019, with the balance (plus charges and interest) to be paid in eight equal monthly installments commencing 06.05.2019, in addition to regular EMIs. If complied with, the loan account will be regularised and the borrowers may service the account under the loan terms. A default will void the relief and empower the Bank to pursue the SARFAESI proceedings from the current stage. The directions are peremptory and not subject to further extensions except in exceptional circumstances.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for payment schedule and regularisation of loan account upon compliance; failure to comply would revert to the original SARFAESI measures.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijayan
Rajini

Respondents

The Manager, Thrissur District Co-oprative Bank Sahakarana Sadabdhi Mandiram, Kovilkathumpadam, Thiruvambady, Thrissur, 680022
The Manager, Thrissur District Co-operativ[e] Bank, Evening Branch, Chalakudy, 680307

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. N. Manoj

Counsels for Respondents

• P. C. Sasidharan (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank to recover dues under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Kerala High Court, while acknowledging its jurisdictional limits under SARFAESI—reiterating that writ petitions are not to entertain merits of such proceedings as per Supreme Court authority—declines to adjudicate the legality of the bank’s orders. The court, however, recognizes the petitioners’ financial distress and the bank’s recovery objective, and devises a pragmatic remedy to avoid foreclosure while ensuring timely recovery. It records the outstanding amount as of 22 February 2019 at Rs 20,52,821 and notes the bank’s offer: an initial payment of Rs 5,00,000 by 28 March 2019, followed by eight monthly installments of the balance, including charges and interest, beginning 06 May 2019, with the borrowers continuing regular EMIs. The court stresses that compliance is mandatory and that any default will annul the relief, enabling the bank to proceed with SARFAESI measures from the date of the order. The writ petition is disposed of on these terms, reflecting a balance between the bank’s recovery interests and the borrowers’ hardship, favoring settlement over protracted litigation provided strict compliance is observed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, Section 13(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought indulgence to pay the overdue amounts in installments due to financial constraints. They submitted that the bank’s primary aim is recovery, not endless litigation, and urged the court to allow a structured payment plan that would regularize the loan account while avoiding coercive actions. They accepted a proposed schedule contingent on timely payment of installments, emphasizing willingness to comply and service the account as per the loan terms.

Contentions of Respondents

The Bank supported the idea of recovery but, through counsel, indicated a pragmatic willingness to consider installments if it would expedite recovery. The bank’s final stance was to ensure recovery with a time-bound plan, warning that non-payment would revoke relief and allow continuation of SARFAESI measures.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Mentioned Only	Cited as binding authority regarding the jurisdictional limits of judicial review in SARFAESI matters, but the court cannot adjudicate merits of the orders and therefore does not rely on its substantive holdings in this case.
Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew	ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479	Positive	Acknowledged as a binding precedent followed by the Kerala High Court, aligning with the approach of enabling instalment-based resolution while avoiding merits adjudication in SARFAESI petitions.

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 Vijayan and Rajini v The Manager, Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank Sahakarana Sadabdhi Mandiram, Kovilkathumpadam, Thiruvambady, Thrissur; The Manager, Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank, Evening Branch, Chalakudy 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 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5209 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 VIJAYAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, KATTILAPARAMABIL HOUSE, KODASSERY VILLAGE, METTIPADAM DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 RAJINI, W/O VIJAYAN, KATTILAPARAMABIL HOUSE, KODASSERY VILLAGE, METTIPADAM DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, TRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE MANAGER, TRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPRATIVE BANK SAHAKARANA SADABDHI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR, 680022.** - **2 THE MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, EVENING BRANCH, CHALAKUDY, 680 307 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 5209/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Through this writ petition, the petitioners call 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 petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners 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 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.** WPC 5209/19 3 **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. 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 overdue 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 WPC 5209/19 4 learned counsel has fairly submitted that the Bank is concerned about recovery at the earliest and that if the petitioners pay 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 petitioners, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition allowing them 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 overdues as on **22.02.2019** comes to **Rs.20,52,821/-** and that if the petitioners pay an amount Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2019 and the balance in eight monthly installments, commencing from 06.05.2019, the account can be regularised by WPC 5209/19 5 the Bank. 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 petitioner to pay an amount **Rs.5,00,000/-** on or before **28.03.2019;** and if they make this payment, then they will be permitted to pay off the balance, along with applicable charges and interest, in **eight** equal monthly instalments, commencing from **06.05.2019.** They shall also, in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs without fail. If such payment is made by the petitioners, their loan account would stand regularised and they would then be at liberty to service the account as per the terms of the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying that if there WPC 5209/19 6 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 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 and impugned in this writ petition before any other alternative Forum or Court. WPC 5209/19 7 The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **SD/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 5209/19 8 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECULARIZATION AND RE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECULARIZATION AND RE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002.