Kerala High Court
Sajitha P.M vs The Union Bank Of India 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. 15563 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SAJITHA P.M.
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O THOUDANKATTIL MOIDEEN,
PO ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680084
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
C.ANIL KUMAR
PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
GOKUL KRISHNA
MANOJKUMAR G.
ASHOK MENON
RESPONDENT:
THE UNION BANK OF INDIA
KUNNAMKULAM ECB BRANCH, XVI/236,
JOBS SHOPPING COMPLEX, WADAKANCHERY ROAD,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680503
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.15563 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th 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, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹8.19 lakhs towards Vehicle Loan and ₹9,86,600/- towards Working Capital Loan to the petitioner in the years 2017 and 2020 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 difficulty. The repayment of loans fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) No.15563 of 20243
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 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, 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 2017 and 2020 WP(C) No.15563 of 2024 4 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 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 to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 12.04.2024 is ₹13,64,000/- and the WP(C) No.15563 of 2024 5 overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹2,27,000/-.
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 loan 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 ₹2,27,000/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if WP(C) No.15563 of 2024 6 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 respondent 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.
(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.15563 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15563/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 31/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26/3/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CRL MP 11232/2023