Shibu M vs Authorised Officer, The People's Urban Co Operative Bank Limited

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext P1 sale notice issued by the respondent – Bank and to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to apply and avail the One Time Settlement(OTS) facility.

The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed a loan from the respondent – Bank – by creating an equitable mortgage. The petitioner is suffering from coronary artery disease. Therefore, he could not pay the instalments on time. Now, the 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 is prepared to avail the OTS scheme. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri. Dennis Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Devaprasanth.P.J, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri. Devaprasanth.P.J, on instructions, submitted that Ext P1 was the first sale notice. There was no bidders in the said sale. Subsequently, another sale notice was issued and the Bank has purchased the secured asset on 20.08.2022. Now, the secured asset is a non-banking asset of the respondent. Therefore, there is no question of permitting the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in instalments. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to approach the Bank with concrete proposal, which would be considered by the respondent.

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 learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I do not find any extra ordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it will be up to the petitioner to approach the respondent – Bank and the same will be considered by the respondent, in accordance with law.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank, in accordance with law.