Omana M.N vs Chief Manager, Chottanikkara Branch, Chottanikkara, Ernakulam District., Pin 682312

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed inter alia to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in instalments and to regularise the loan account.

The petitioner’s case is that, she had availed financial assistance from the first respondent Bank by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to circumstances beyond her control, she could not pay the EMIs on time. The respondent Bank has proceeded against the secured assets under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘Act, 2002’ for short). The petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 30304 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 28.10.2022 permitting the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in 5 equated monthly instalments commencing from 15.11.2022. But, the petitioner could not comply with the said direction. Now the Bank has dispossessed the petitioner. The petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire outstanding amount and close the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard Sri. M.A. Ahammad Saheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan, on instructions, submitted that the outstanding amount as on 04.07.2023 is Rs.53,50,750/-. The Bank has already taken possession of the secured asset and the Bank is not willing to permit the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in instalments. The petitioner may be relegated to the statutory remedy.

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, 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 this Court has already exercised the discretionary power by passing Ext.P2 judgment, which has not been complied with by the petitioner, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances warranting invocation of discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to entertain the writ petition.

Nonetheless, it will be up to the petitioner to work out her statutory remedies.

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