IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2956 of 2007()
1. HEMA ANTONY, W/O SIMON VAZ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYA BANK, WELLINGTON ISLAND BRANCH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/12/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & P.N.Ravindran,J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.2956 of 2007
-----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner. In the first
writ petition filed, petitioner had called in question the initiation of proceedings
by the respondent-Bank to recover the amounts due from the petitioner. The
writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court. The petitioner, not being
satisfied with the dismissal of the writ petition, was before this Court in
W.A.No.1359 of 2007. Even that appeal came to be rejected.
(2) After rejection of the said Writ Appeal, the petitioner has
filed yet another writ petition for a direction to permit the petitioner to pay the
balance amount due in terms of his agreement with the Bank.
(3) The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition,
has observed that, the request for payment of balance amount in terms of the
agreement ought to have been raised in the earlier round of litigation and the
petitioner cannot ventilate her grievances in piecemeal. Further, taking into
consideration the fervent plea made by the petitioner’s learned counsel, the
learned Single Judge has thought it fit to permit the petitioner to pay 50% of
the amounts due to the Bank within one month and the balance of amount in
four equal monthly instalments. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition is before is before us in
this appeal.
(4) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner
reiterates the contentions canvassed before the learned Single Judge. At the
outset we would say that, we are not impressed with the submissions made by
the learned counsel.
W.A.No.2956 of 2007 – 2 –
(5) As we have already noticed, this is the third round of
litigation by the appellant. The object and purpose of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (“Act” for short), is now explained by the apex Court in Mardia Chemicals
Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311]. The apex Court has also upheld the
vires of the Act. The respondent-Bank, in order to recover the amounts due
from the defaulters, is now entitled to issue appropriate notices under Section
13(2) of the Act to recover the loan amounts from the defaulters. If for any
reason any person is aggrieved by the said notices, can question the same
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(6) In spite of all these, the learned Single Judge, taking a very
sympathetic view of the matter, has granted certain instalment facility to the
appellant to pay up the amounts due to the Bank. In our view, the learned
Single Judge has granted more relief than what was sought for by the
appellant. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error whatsoever, which would call for our interference in
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
(7) The appellant is permitted to pay 50% of the amounts due
to the Bank, as directed by the learned Single Judge, on or before 15.01.2008
and the remaining four instalments shall be paid by the appellant starting from
1.3.2008.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran
Judge
vku/-