Kerala High Court
Philomina Pauly vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 11 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14975 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PHILOMINA PAULY,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.PAULY (LATE),
APPADAN HOUSE,
NORTH BAZAR.PO, OLLUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
FEMY M.ANTONY
K.J.SUNIL
RESPONDENT:
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE-THRISSUR,
1ST FLOOR, SIB PLATINUM JUBILEE BUILDING,
CIVIL LINE ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 680003
BY ADV.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.14975/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the South Indian Bank to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹32 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan and an amount of ₹14,75,000/- as Property Loan in the years 2015 and 2018 respectively. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to financial crisis. The repayment of loans fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.14975/2024 :3:
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding. The authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and issued Exts.P1 and P2 notices.
4. The petitioner states that she is still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, if sufficient time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2015 and W.P.(C) No.14975/2024 :4: 2018 respectively. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required her to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 09.04.2024 towards the W.P.(C) No.14975/2024 :5: Housing Loan is ₹35,90,000/- and Property Loan is 16,37,000/- and the overdue amount towards the Housing Loan is ₹6,28,000/- and Property Loan is ₹3,10,000/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the account occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the total overdue amount of ₹9,38,000/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly W.P.(C) No.14975/2024 :6: installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR W.P.(C) No.14975/2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14975/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION NOTICE IN CMP NO: 2571/2024 PENDING BEFORE HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
12.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.