AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 333 wordsC.S Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pay off the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments and close the loan account.
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 reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the instalments on time. The Bank has now 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 willing to pay the outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments and close the loan account. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.J.Abhilash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Smt.Deepa Narayanan, on instructions, submitted that the outstanding amount as on 21.7.2023 is Rs.1,86,48,229/-. The Bank is not willing to extend any instalment facility to the petitioner in view of the enormous outstanding amount.
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 stand taken by the respondents, I am not inclined 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 petitioner to invoke his statutory remedies under the Act.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.