PREMAKUMAR Vs. KERALA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged certain measures taken by the 1st respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act ' for brevity).

(2.) However, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479), I will obtain no jurisdiction to entertain this challenge and therefore, the prayers of the petitioners on this ground will certainly have to fail. That said, however, I see that the petitioners have also sought for time to pay off the entire outstanding in the loan account.

(3.) Even though this matter had been listed yesterday and called several times, there was no representation for the petitioners and the status is not different today either. However, taking note of the plight projected by the petitioners in their pleadings on record, I deem it appropriate not to dismiss this case for default, but to allow relief as far as is possible, subject to the consent of the learned counsel for the Bank.