Kerala High Court
K Bhaskaran vs The Authorized Officer on 12 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15038 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 K. BHASKARAN,
AGED 72 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER M/S BROTHERS INDUSTRIES
SNEHALAYAM PUTHIYAVILA P.O.,
KANDALLOOR,
ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690531
2 PADMAVATHI L.,
AGED 68 YEARS,
SNEHALAYAM PUTHIYAVILA P.O.,
KANDALLOOR ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690531
BY ADV ATHUL M.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY
BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,
PALARIVATTOM ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682024
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SME MAVELIKKARA BRANCH,
BM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN - 690101
BY ADV. SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.15038/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the State Bank of India to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹2,50,00,000/- to the petitioners as Cash Credit facility in the year 2019. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
W.P.(C) No.15038/2024:3:
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners 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 to P3 notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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 respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioners, they 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 petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted W.P.(C) No.15038/2024 :4: that the advance was given to the petitioners in the year 2019. The petitioners committed default in maintaining the credit facility.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the petitioners invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 to P3 notices were issued in these circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the W.P.(C) No.15038/2024 :5: Bank from the petitioners as on 11.04.2024 is ₹3,93,76,396/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit an amount of ₹50 lakhs within a period of one month from today.W.P.(C) No.15038/2024
:6:
(ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 11 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioners commit default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.
(iv) If the petitioners pay the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioners will stand deferred.
(v) Needless to say the petitioner shall unconditionally withdraw the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR W.P.(C) No.15038/2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15038/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18.09.2023 IS ANNEXED Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.