IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE27H DAY OF AUGUST20145TH BHADRA, 1936 WA.No. 1180 of 2014 IN WP(C).19628/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 19628/2014 DATED3107-2014 ................. APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE RETAIL ASSETS AND SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES CITY CREDIT CENTRE CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM COMPLEX VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3. BRANCH MANAGER, POOJAPPURA BRANCH, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- A. NOUSHAD S/O.M.ABDUL KAREEM, NOUFAL MANZIL, KARAMVILA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.M.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2708-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.C.J.
& A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1180 OF2014- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2014 JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19628 of 2014. By disposing the writ petition learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount in 15 equal monthly instalments and the first instalment was to be made on or before 30.08.2014.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contended that the default clause, that if default is committed in two consecutive instalments, is prejudicial to the right and interest of the bank. He further submitted that a long period has been provided for payment of the amount which ought not have been done. He further submitted that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court ought WA No. 1180 of 2014 -:2:- not have interfered with the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Bank. We find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The petitioner in the writ petition had expressed his willingness to make the payment of entire loan amount, provided, he is given reasonable time. That was the only prayer made in the writ petition.
4. There is no dispute that normally, the writ petition challenging the SARFAESI proceedings cannot be entertained by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as laid down by Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC110. However, in the present case the petitioner was not challenging the proceedings, nor was making any prayer to set aside the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. He came with the prayer to permit him to deposit the entire amount in a reasonable time. In such cases, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge permitting the petitioner to deposit the entire amount cannot be said to be vitiated. In so far as the submission of the appellant Bank that the condition of default WA No. 1180 of 2014 -:3:- payment be modified, we are satisfied that said relief can be granted as in case of default of 'any two instalments' by the respondent/petitioner, it shall be open for the Bank to proceed with the SARFAESI Act, 2002. With the above modification, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/27/08