Sheenamol Joseph vs Canara Bank

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount in installments and regularise the loan account.

The petitioners' case is that they had availed financial assistance from the respondent bank, by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Due to reasons beyond their control and the Covid-19 pandemic, they could not pay the installments on time. The bank has now proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'Act') and is threatening to take physical possession of the secured asset. The petitioners are willing to pay the overdue amount in installments and regularise the loan account. Hence, the Writ Petition.

Heard; Sri. Shakthi Praksh, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, on instructions, submitted that this Court by Ext.P2 judgment had permitted the petitioners to pay the overdue amount in ten equated monthly installments commencing from 26.09.2022. But the petitioners did not avail the benefit of the said judgment. Now the respondent has filed OA No.562/2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, which is pending consideration. Therefore, the respondent is not willing to permit the petitioners to pay the outstanding amount in installments. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

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, 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 taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent is not willing to extent any installment facility to the petitioners, I do not find any circumstances warranting exercise of the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it is upto the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies in accordance with law.

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