Maruvan vs Bank Of Baroda

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to repay the loan amount in 25 installments.

The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed a commercial vehicle loan from the respondent for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Due to the circumstances beyond his control, he could not repay the loan amount. An Advocate Commissioner has issued Ext.P1 notice to take physical possession of the vehicle. The action of the respondent is high-handed and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard: Sri.Cherian Mathew Poothicote, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Leo George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri. Leo George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition as W.P. (C)No.21647/2022, which was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioner to pay off the overdue amount in ten equated monthly installments. The petitioner has not complied with the directions passed in the judgment. Without revealing the above fact, the present writ petition is filed. 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, has categorically held that the 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.

In the case on hand, undisputably the petitioner has approached this Court and was granted the benefit to pay off the loan amount in ten equated monthly installments. The petitioner has not availed the said benefit. I do not find any extraordinary circumstances warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the above conspectus, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to workout his remedies in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed.