Kerala High Court
Ajimon P.S vs The Authorized Officer 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. 13392 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AJIMON P.S., AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARAN, PUTHENVEETTIL,
MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690506
BY ADVS.
T.S.HARIKUMAR
P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
SECOND FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 UNION BANK OF INDIA,
MAVELIKARA BRANCH, ALAKAPURI COMPLEX,
MITCHEL JUNCTION, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 690101
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ
SIVA SURESH
B.SREEDEVI
ATHIRA VIJAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.13392 of 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 Union Bank of India to the petitioner and his brother, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹12 lakhs to the petitioner and his brother as Housing Loan in the year 2007. The petitioner states that though the petitioner and his brother made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to financial difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and his brother. WP(C) No.13392 of 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 to P3 notices.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that WP(C) No.13392 of 2024 4 the loan was given to the petitioner and his brother in the year 2007. The petitioner and his brother committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and his brother and required them to clear the dues. They deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner and his brother invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 to P3 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 remit the balance overdue amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner and his brother to clear the dues. The WP(C) No.13392 of 2024 5 Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner and his brother as on 11.04.2024 is ₹8,26,800/- and the overdue amount as on 11.04.2024 is ₹2,10,900/-.
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 and his brother have been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the loan occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and his brother. They have 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. WP(C) No.13392 of 2024 6
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹2,10,900/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments. WP(C) No.13392 of 2024 7
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.13392 of 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13392/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P.1. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 20-05-2023.
Exhibit-P.2. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19-12-2023.
Exhibit-P.3. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 19-02-2024.