M. Joseph vs M/s Canara Bank Ltd

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the loan amount in equated monthly instalments.

The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed a loan from the respondent – Bank by creating equitable mortgage. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he could to pay off the loan amount on time. The respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and is proceeding against the secured asset. The petitioner is prepared to pay off the loan amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. T.S.Sarath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions, submitted that the respondent is not prepared to extend any instalment facility to the petitioner. The petitioner can very well approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and exhaust the statutory remedies.

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 submission made by the the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I do not find any extra ordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

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