Shamila vs Canara Bank

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent – Bank to permit the petitioner to pay off the outstanding loan amount in instalments and regularise the loan account.

The petitioner’s case is that, she and her husband had availed a housing loan from the respondent – Bank – by creating an equitable mortgage. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband was murdered on 31.03.2021. After the death of the husband, she was unable to pay off the instalments amount on time. The respondent – Bank 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 may be permitted to pay off the outstanding amount in instalments. Hence, the writ petition.

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 22.03.2023, this Court had stayed further coercive proceedings as against the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 27.04.2023.

Heard; Sri. Vishnu Bhuvanendran, 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 petitioner has not complied with the interim direction passed by this Court on 22.03.2023.

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 the petitioner has not complied with the interim order dated 22.03.2023 passed by this Court, 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 her remedies, in accordance with law.