AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S.Dias, J
The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondent – Bank to permit the petitioner to close the loan liability in instalments.
The petitioner’s case is that, he had availed financial assistance from the respondent – Bank – in the year 2015 by availing an overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.2 crore. Due to reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the instalments on time. The respondent – Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(in short,’Act’) and taken symbolic possession of the secured asset. The petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire loan account in instalments fixed by this Court. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard; Sri. M.K.Dileep Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Devaprasanth.P.J., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Sri. Devaprasanth.P.J., on instructions, submitted that the collateral securities have already become a Non-Banking Asset. The Bank has taken symbolic possession of the property as early as on 30.03.2020. The outstanding liability is Rs.6,21,83,140/-. The petitioner has not repaid a single rupee towards the liability. Hence, the respondent is not willing to accept the prayer of the petitioner to pay the outstanding amounts in 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 taking note of the stand taken by the respondent and that the respondent – Bank has already taken symbolic possession of the property, 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 petitioner to either approach the Bank with a concrete proposal or work out his remedies before the statutory authorities as provided 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.