Mr Satheesan. K vs State Bank Of India

C. S. Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P6 and P7 notice issued by the second respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’).

The petitioners’ case is that, they are husband and wife. The first petitioner is a contractor and the second petitioner is a home maker. They had availed a housing loan from the second respondent on 04.07.2013 by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. The first petitioner had availed financial assistance and was doing certain contract work. Now, the respondents have issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which shows that no amount was deposited towards the housing loan account. In fact, the second respondent has sanctioned a working capital loan of Rs.20/- lakh. Although the petitioners voluntarily agreed to pay the overdue amount, the respondents have invoked Section 13(4) of the Act and have issued Exts.P6 and P7 and are threatening to take physical possession of the secured asset. The action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri.Legy Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Tom K. Thomas, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sri.Tom K. Thomas, on instructions, submitted that the total outstanding amount as on 19.07.2023 is Rs.1,81,19,017/-. The financial assistance availed by the petitioners was a cash credit facility. The same has been recalled and the account has been classified as Non Performing Asset. Due to the enormous amount that is due from the petitioner, the respondents are not willing to extend any instalment facility to the petitioners. The petitioners may be relegated to exhaust their 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 Act, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and after appreciating the rival submissions across the Bar, I am of the definite view that there are no extraordinary circumstances made out to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioners to workout their statutory remedies, in accordance with law.

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