STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. JESPIN RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Kerala Fishermen Debt Relief Commission interdict a secured creditor from enforcing the security interest created under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Securitisation Act) is the question before this Court? Petitioner, State Bank of India, challenges Ext.P8 order passed by the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission (KSFDRC) wherein the measures under the Securitisation Act is interdicted. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P8 order is that the Securitisation Act overrides the provisions of the Kerala Fisherman Debt Relief Commission Act 2008.

(2.) The averments in the writ petition shows that by Ext.P1 application dtd. 19/8/2008, the 1st respondent availed a credit facility in the form of housing loan. On default, the bank initiated measures under the Securitisation Act on 6/10/2016. Once the measures were initiated, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12744 of 2017 which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment wherein, the 1st respondent was given liberty to pay the outstanding amounts in twelve monthly installments. On default, the bank moved the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sec. 14 of the Securitisation Act and obtained Ext.P5 order appointing a Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. In the meantime, the 1st respondent seems to have approached the 2nd respondent, the KSFDRC, with an application for waiver on 19/3/2018. By Ext.P7, the bank raised objection and also stated that the issues could be amicably settled. On 4/4/2018, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order- Ext.P8 by which the secured creditor was directed to hand over the keys of the secured asset to the complainant with a further direction to the petitioner bank not to take coercive steps without the permission of the 2nd respondent. Challenging the aforesaid directions, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Amal George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. T.B. Hood, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. T.G. Sunil, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.