Soumya S vs Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioners to pay off the overdue amount in equated monthly instalments and regularise the loan account.

The petitioners' case is that they had availed a Kisan Credit Card facility from the respondent – Bank for an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- in the year 2017. Subsequently, they had also availed another loan for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. They offered their residential property as collateral security by deposit of title deeds. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they could not pay the instalments on time. The respondent 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’) threatening to take physical possession of the secured asset. The petitioners are willing to pay off the overdue amount in instalments and regularise the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri.Naveen Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.R.Rema, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

Smt.R.Rema, on instructions, submitted that the outstanding amount in respect of the loan account of the petitioners as on 27.7.2023 is Rs.51,51,660/-. The respondent has already filed O.A 6/2023 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, to recover the outstanding amount. The respondent is not willing to grant the petitioners any further instalment facility keeping in mind their antecedents and also the enormous amount due from them. 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 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 appreciating the rival submissions, I do not find any extra-ordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition by exercising the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to 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.