Sreenivasan vs IDBI Bank Ltd

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance Ext.P5 proceedings and permit the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in twenty five equated monthly instalments.

The petitioner's case is that, he had availed financial assistance from the respondent – Bank - by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not pay the instalments on time. The respondent has initiated proceedings against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioner is ready to pay the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments and close the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard; Sri.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri.C.Ajith Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the respondent – Bank has already filed O.A No.335/2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal – I, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner. The outstanding amount is Rs.69,24,814/-. The respondent is not willing to permit the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments. 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 made across the Bar, 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.