Kerala High Court
Sreenivasan V vs The Calicut Co-Operative Urban 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. 15046 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SREENIVASAN V.,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAN C. K,
VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KANNANCHERRY,
KALLAI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
RAYEES P.
ALWIN JOSEPH
BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENT:
THE CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
NO. 1538, KALLAI ROAD,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER CUM
AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 673002
BY ADV. SMT.MANJU M.
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.15046/2024
: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 Calicut Co-operative Urban 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 ₹10,20,000/- to the petitioner as Cash Credit Loan in the year 2016. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to financial crisis. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.15046/2024:3:
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding 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 he is still in a position to clear the outstanding amounts towards the loan, 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, he 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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2016. The W.P.(C) No.15046/2024 :4: petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him 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 outstanding 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 11.04.2024 is ₹17,17,228/-. W.P.(C) No.15046/2024 :5:
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned 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 outstanding amount of ₹17,17,228/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or W.P.(C) No.15046/2024 :6: 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) 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.15046/2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15046/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
06.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE
HONORABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE IN C.M.P. NO.
610/2023.