Jinu C.X. vs Authorised Officer, Union Bank Of India

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioners to pay off the outstanding amount in instalments and defer further coercive proceedings.

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 5.6.2023, this Court passed an interim order, directing the petitioners to deposit 25% of 9,10,000/-before the respondent on or before 13.6.2023.

Heard; Sri.Subi K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. ASP Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri.ASP.Kurup, on instructions, submitted that, the petitioners have not complied with the interim order dated 9.6.2023. Therefore, the respondent is not ready to extend any instalment facility or offer OTS scheme to the petitioners. The said submission is recorded.

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 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 fact that the petitioners have not accepted the offer made by the respondent, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioners to workout their statutory remedies as provided under the Act.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to workout their remedies, in accordance with law.