RAVI T. R. Vs. CAN FIN HOMES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the coercive proceedings of loan recovery instituted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act . 2022. This Court vide interim order dtd. 14/7/2023 had said as under:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Finance Limited, assisted by Mr. Shiva, its Authorized Officer contends that the Petitioner is not a gentleman; two offences have been registered in Crime No.347/2022 in which the FIR was lodged by the Authorized Officer and Crime No.312/2023 in Byadarahalli Police Station wherein the FIR is lodged by the Woman police Sub-Inspector; the first case involves offence of criminal trespass of subject property and after investigation, the police have filed the Charge Sheet and now a case is registered as CC No.3876/2023; in the second case, the allegation is as to the police official being prevented from discharging the public duty i.e., enforcing Sec. 14 order and investigation is still on. He also points out the leniency shown by his client i.e., the Finance Company offering to waive a sum of Rupees ten lakh which facility the Petitioners did not avail. That apart, the Petitioners have not fully paid the amount in terms of interim order not shown the plausible explanation for non-payment. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court broadly agrees with the submission made on behalf of Respondent - Finance Company, there being no reason to doubt the said version. Writ jurisdiction at least in civil disputes is meant for those who conduct themselves gentlemanly and not for the rogue elements. Mr. Shiva, the Authorized Officer of the Respondent - Bank has shown from his mobile phone the video recording of the blameworthy conduct of Petitioners with the lender, when repayment of loan was solicited. No plausible explanation is offered for such a misdemeanor. The borrowers should have gratitude toward the lending institutions. They cannot raise their voice against officials of the Bank when coercive actions of recovery are resorted to. Even otherwise, the Petitioners have not availed the leniency shown by the Respondent -Bank by offering to waive a sum of Rupees ten lakh; his submission that the Petitioners have already paid some amount in terms of the interim order as above, does not make them scrupulous borrowers since what is paid is less than 30% of what was ordered to be paid, and it was only as a reprieve.