VINODHINI JAYACHANDRAN Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 30th day of October 2019 S. Manikumar, CJ Being aggrieved by the order made in W.P(C).No.4308 of 2019 dated 13.2.2019, instant appeal is filed. Material on record discloses that appellant has borrowed money from M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., Kochi. The bank has taken action under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. Being aggrieved, she has filed S.A. No.237 of 2017, with a prayer to set aside an order dated 1.11.2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernkulam in M.C. No.1160 of 2016 and to give the appellant a breathing time to clear the entire overdue amount and to get the loan account regularised. Pending S.A. No.237 of 2017, the petitioner has filed W.P(C). No.4308 of 2019, for a mandamus directing the Authorised officer, M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., to keep all further proceedings in the petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act pending on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Special Court), Ernakulam in M.C. No.659 of 2018, in abeyance pending pronouncement of final orders in S.A. No.237 of 2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. She has also sought for a direction to the the Authorised officer, M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., not to effect physical dispossession of petitioner and her family from their only shelter on or after 22.2.2019 as stated in Ext.P9 notice, before disposal of S.A. No. 237 of 2017.

(2.) Going through the material on record, writ court found that having instituted proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, writ petition is not maintainable and at that point of time, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions giving up all contentions both legal and factual and offered to pay the amount in instalments, for which learned counsel for the Bank was also agreeable.

(3.) Placing on record of the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and taking note of the decisions of the Honourabe Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and followed by this Court in Authorised, Officer, SBT v. Mathew [ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479] the writ court observed as follows : "3. When my mind as afore was disclosed at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Ayyappan Sankar, said that his client will give up all the contentions, both legal and factual, and that the petitioner will withdraw the Securitization Application pending before the DRT, because she only wants to regularize the account by paying the amount in instalments.