IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2522 of 2007()
1. MOHAMMED RIYAS, S/O.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
2. MOHAMMED SIRAS, S/O.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED,
Vs
1. RECOVERY OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
3. CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORIZED OFFICER),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :23/10/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2522 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd October, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
A scheduled bank is before us, inter alia, calling in question the
correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.26822 of 2007, dated 19th September, 2007.
2. Petitioners (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal) are the borrowers of
certain funds from the second respondent bank (appellant No.1 in the appeal).
Since they have committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, the second
respondent bank has initiated recovery proceedings to recover the balance
amount due from the petitioners by resorting to the provisions of the Securitisation
Act. Aggrieved by the action of the bank, petitioners were before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.26822 of 2007. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration
the plea of financial inability pleaded by the petitioners to re-pay the amounts
immediately, has granted some time to the petitioners to re-pay the dues to the
bank. The learned Judge has also made it clear that, if for any reason, the
petitioners make any default in complying with the orders and directions issued by
the Court, the bank could continue the recovery proceedings.
3. A writ court is a court of equities. It has extraordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction. When a human being approaches the court seeking certain reliefs on
several grounds and if those grounds are bona fide and appealing to the learned
single Judge and if he extends his helping hand to alleviate the grievance of the
human being, that cannot be taken exception, that too by a scheduled bank.
4. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the petitioners have
W.A. NO.2522 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
committed default in re-payment of the loan amount borrowed from the second
respondent bank. The bank has initiated recovery proceedings. It is that which
has brought the petitioners before the Court. It was contended by the petitioners
that they have re-payed huge loan amounts to various banks, which amounts to
above a crore. They also pleaded their financial inability to re-pay the amounts
due to the second respondent bank immediately. Keeping all these aspects of the
matter in view, the learned single Judge has postponed the recovery proceedings
initiated by the second respondent bank till 31.12.2007. In our opinion, this has
been done by the learned single Judge exercising its discretionary and
extraordinary jurisdiction. We do not find any fault in the order passed by the
learned single Judge. Therefore, confirming the order passed by the learned
single Judge, we make it clear that the petitioners in the Writ Petition shall comply
with the orders and directions issued by this Court within the time granted. We
also make it clear that if, for any reason, the petitioners fails to comply with the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant-Bank is at liberty to
continue with the recovery proceedings to recover the dues from the petitioners.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/DK