Devi K.V vs Authorised Officer Union Bank Of India

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first respondent to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

The petitioner’s case is that, she was a guarantor of a loan that was availed by the third respondent from the second respondent bank. Even though the petitioner and her husband had made substantial remittance in discharge of the EMI, they could not pay the loan amount in time. The first respondent proceeded against the secured asset invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short ‘SARFAESI Act’). Now, the respondents - bank has sought the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property. The action of the respondents is unjustifiable and untenable. Hence, the writ petition.

The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. They have contended that the petitioner’s husband had filed W.P.(C)No.35584/2019 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.R2A judgment dated 23.1.2020, permitting the petitioner’s husband to pay off the loan amount in equated monthly installments. Yet, the petitioner therein failed to comply with the directions. Hence, the present writ petition is only a ruse to protract the further determination of the proceedings. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard: Sri.Sujini S.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.S.P. Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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 of the subject-matter in this writ petition, 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.

In the case on hand, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, particularly Ext. R2 A judgment, I am of the definite view that there is no extraordinary circumstances made out warranting exercise of the plenary powers of this Court to issue a prerogative writ to interdict the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. As the petitioner failed to avail the discretionary relief that was granted by this Court in Ext.R2A judgment, I do not find any extraordinary circumstance to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.