IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17503 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 GEORGE M. PHILIP
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O M.P.PHILIPOSE, , MUTTUMTHARAPADICKAL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-, PIN - 686004
2 ALLEN GEORGE PHILIP
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O GEORGE M. PHILIP, MUTTUMTHARAPADICKAL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686004
BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS
RESPONDENT:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
LCRD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION,THEKKUMKAL BUILDINGS, T.B.ROAD,
KOTTAYAM -REP. BY IT'S AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 686001
BY ADV P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
2
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent not to evict the petitioners from their residential building for a period of three months, pursuant to Ext.P3 notice.
2. The petitioners' case is that, the first petitioner had availed a overdraft facility from the respondent- Bank, for which the second petitioner was a guarantor. The petitioners had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent. Due to reasons beyond their control, they could not pay the EMIs on time. The respondent has proceeded against the secured asset of the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI Act'). The first petitioner had approached this Court by filing
3
W.P(C)No.22805/2021, which was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P1 judgment, directing the first petitioner to clear off the liabilities on or before 31.1.2022. Subsequently, the first petitioner filed W.P(C)No.8854/2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P2 judgment. Now, the petitioners only want a breathing time to vacate the premises. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri.A.K. Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Mohan Jacob George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Sri. Mohan Jacob George, on instructions, submitted that, this is the third round of litigation by the petitioners before this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has already shown indulgence, by permitting the petitioner to pay off the loan amount on or before 31.1.2022, which has not been complied with. Therefore,
4
this Court may not entertain the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners may be granted three months time to vacate the premises.
6. 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.
7. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and taking note of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, already passed by this Court, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ
5
petition exercising the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be upto the petitioners to workout their statutory remedies as provided under the Act. Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to workout their remedies, in accordance with law, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
rmm31/5/2023
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
Comments