IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34171 of 2009(N)
1. BETTY JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
2. DEEPTHY BETTY, W/O.BETTY JOSEPH,
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
... Respondent
2. BRANCH MANAGER,
3. CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.WILSON URMESE
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009
&
W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
1. These two writ petitions are filed by partners of
two sister concerns. Challenge in both the cases are
against proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under
the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act). The respondents have already took
steps as provided under Section 13 (4) and further steps
have now been proceeded for sale of the secured assets and
also to take physical possession of the properties invoking
Section 14 (1) of the Act. According to the petitioners they
have approached the respondent Bank making certain offer
for ‘One Time Settlement’/’Compromise Settlement’. But
the Bank has not accepted such offer since the amount
W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009
&
W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009
-2-
promised are not agreeable. The petitioners were advised to
improve their offer.
2. Heard, standing counsel appearing for the
respondents. It is submitted that with respect to the loan
covered under W.P.(C) 34172/2009, steps for sale of the
secured assets was initiated as early in the year 2008, and
the 1st petitioner along with another partner had
approached this court in W.P.(C) No.35127/2008.
Eventhough this court has shown indulgence in restraining
coercive steps on condition of payment of a part of the
arrears, the petitioners have not chosen to avail the benefit
granted therein. There is a specific reservation made in the
judgment of the said writ petition, enabling the respondents
to proceed with further steps on failure to make payment of
the amount stipulated therein.
3. Under such circumstances the respondents
contended that W.P.(C) No.34172/2009 is not at all
sustainable. Further it is contended that in both the cases
W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009
&
W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009
-3-
the proposal for compromise settlement has already been
rejected and intimations were issued to the petitioners to
the effect that the Bank is not agreeable to accept such
offer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
after filing of the writ petitions the petitioners have
approached the respondent Bank with fresh offers for
compromise settlement, enhancing the settlement offers. It
is also submitted that in order to show bonafides, an
amount of Rs.25 lakhs was remitted in a non-lien account of
one of the relatives of the petitioners. Learned standing
counsel submitted that he has no instruction regarding
receipt of any such proposal and it is further stated that
deposit of any amount in Bank Account of a person who is
neither a borrower nor a guarantor cannot be taken as part
payment made in pursuance of an offer for settlement.
5. Having considered facts and circumstances of the
cases and submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion
W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009
&
W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009
-4-
that it is for the petitioners to pursue their remedies before
the authorities of the respondent Bank, with respect to
compromise settlement of the loan account. This court
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 is not
supposed to enter upon any such negotiations regarding
any of the aspects. Nor this court can consider pendency of
any such negotiations regarding compromise settlement, as
a ground to interfere with proceedings initiated under the
SARFAESI Act. It is for the petitioners to approach the
authorities of the respondent Bank with reasonable offer
and also with deposit of reasonable amount in order to show
their bonafides.
6. However, since it is submitted that as such there
is no sale proclaimed with respect to the properties, I am
inclined to show indulgence to restrain the respondents
from taking any further coercive steps for a reasonable
period in order to facilitate the petitioners to make such
approach as stated above. Therefore the writ petitions are
W.P.(C)No. 34171 of 2009
&
W.P.(C)No. 34172 of 2009
-5-
disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance
all further coercive steps with respect to sale or with
respect to take over of actual possession of the immovable
properties for a period of one month from today, in order to
facilitate the petitioners to approach the appropriate
authorities persuing ‘One Time Settlement’/Compromise
Settlement’, provided the petitioners makes appropriate
offers regarding such settlement within a period of two
weeks from today.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
shg/