Francis Noel vs Authorized Officer Chief Manager, (Maintenance), State Bank Of India

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today.

The petitioner’s case is that he had availed financial assistance from the second respondent – Bank – by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the instalments on time. Thereafter the petitioner filed WP(C) 19207/21 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext P1 judgment permitting the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.49,60,163/- with interest and cost in twelve equated monthly instalments commencing from 31.12.2022. The petitioner could not avail the benefit of  the  said  judgment. Now,  the  Bank  has initiated proceedings against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner is willing to pay the entire outstanding amount within one month. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard;   Sri.M.Rajesh,   the   learned   counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sri.Jawahar Jose, on instructions, submitted that notwithstanding the petitioner failing to comply with the conditions in Ext P1 judgment, the petitioner also volunteered to pay 50% of the outstanding amount within one month from 5.5.2023. He has failed to make the said payment. Therefore, the Bank is not amenable for any sort of instalment 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 rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extraordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Act, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that this Court has already exercised its discretionary powers by passing Ext P1 judgment and the petitioner has not availed the benefit of the judgment, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to either approach the Bank and submit a proposal or work out his statutory remedies in accordance with law.

Resultantly,  the  writ  petition  is  dismissed  without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.