Kerala High Court
M. Prasad vs The Authorized Officer/Deputy General ... 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. 1347 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M. PRASAD
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT MENOTH HOUSE,
EDAKKUNNI, OLLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
BY ADV RAMEEZ NOOH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
(ERSTWHILE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK),
THRISSUR CREDIT PROCESSING CENTRE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
OLLUR BRANCH, OLLUR P.O. THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 680306
BY ADV SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN
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.1347 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 Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited 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 a Simple Loan to the petitioner in the year 2017. 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 difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
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 WP(C) No.1347 of 2024 3 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 Ext.P1 notice.
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 the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The 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 WP(C) No.1347 of 2024 4 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 Ext.P1 was 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 to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 13.03.2024 is ₹13,07,804/- and the overdue amount as on 13.03.2024 is ₹5,93,630/-.
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 loan WP(C) No.1347 of 2024 5 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 overdue amount of ₹5,93,630/- 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. WP(C) No.1347 of 2024 6
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to
approach the Bank for a One Time
Settlement in the matter, if such a Scheme is available with the Bank, provided that should be without violating the directions for payment given herein.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.1347 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1347/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.
03.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER