Johney Roy vs South Indian Bank Ltd

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to regularise the housing loan account and Kisan Cash Credit loan account of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s case is that he is an agriculturist. He had availed three loans, namely, (i) Kisan cash credit, (ii) home loan, and (iii) car loan, by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the instalments on time. The respondents have 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 prepared to pay off the entire outstanding amount in equated monthly instalments. Hence, the writ petition.

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition. The first respondent has categorically pleaded that the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 24.3.2021 with effect from 22.1.2021. The first respondent has already initiated proceedings under the Act. The petitioner has filed Securitisation Application No.300/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, challenging the steps initiated under Sec.13(4) of the Act. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the property. The Tribunal stayed coercive proceedings on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-on or before 1.9.2022. The petitioner failed to comply with the said order. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred OP(DRT) No.378/2022 before this Court to grant him time till 30.9.2022 to comply with the conditional order. This Court enlarged the time period till 30.9.2022. But, the petitioner failed to deposit the above amount. Thereafter, the respondents have proceeded against the secured asset. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is hence liable to be dismissed.

Heard; Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Shanker, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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 fact that the petitioner has filed a securitization application before the Tribunal and that he has failed to comply with the conditional order of stay granted by the Tribunal, which was also enlarged by this Court in OP(DRT) 378/2022, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to invoke remedies under the Act.

Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed.