SHOUKATHALI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had availed financial assistance in the form of an Housing Loan from the respondent Bank. The tenure of the loan is for fifteen years. However, due to the financial distress, the petitioner could not pay off the monthly installments within the stipulated time period, compelling the respondent to issue Ext.P1 possession notice. Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request letter for permitting him to pay off the loan amount in installments, the same has been refused by the respondent Bank. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Smt.Mumtaz Shumsuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

(3.) I am conscious of the judicial pronouncements laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and that of this Court in Authiorised officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew [ILR 2018 (1) Ker 479] that this court should be slow in interfering in matters under SARFAESI Act under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the parties should be relegated to exhaust their statutory remedies.