AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 337 wordsC.S.Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in installments and regularise the loan account.
The petitioner's case is that he had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent – Bank by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the unforeseen circumstances, he could not pay the installments in time. The respondents have now proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'Act'). The petitioner is prepared to pay off the loan amount in installments. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Sri.Sunil Shankar, on instructions, submitted that as the petitioner's unit is not running, the respondents are not ready to extend any installment facility to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submissions made across the Bar, I do not find any extra ordinary circumstances, warranting exercise of powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution India to entertain the writ petition and interfere with the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act against the petitioner. Nonetheless the petitioner would be at liberty to invoke the statutory remedies as provided under the SARFAESI Act.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies as contemplated under the law.