Kerala High Court
M/S Sangeeth Builders vs 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. 15571 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS
DOOR NO.II/2645 A, NEW III/2170
KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, KAIPPALLIKUNDU,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER,
PIN - 676503
2 SATHYANATHAN
AGED 65 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, POTTENDAL HOUSE,
KAIPPALLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
3 VIYAYA.M
AGED 56 YEARS
PARTNER OF M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS, W/O.
SATHYANATHAN, POTTENDAL HOUSE,
KAIPPALLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
BIJO FRANCIS
LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, ZONAL OFFICE,
CM MATHEW & BROTHERS ARCADE,
CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
WP(C) No.15571 of 2024
2
2 CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.
KOTTAKKAL BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, DOOR NO.KM2/2645 A
KAIPPALLIKUNDU P.O., KOTTAKKAL, PIN - 676503
BY ADV SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
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.15571 of 2024
3
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 Catholic Syrian Bank Limited 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 ₹70 lakhs to the 1st petitioner as Over Draft facility in the year 2015. 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 financial stringency. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
WP(C) No.15571 of 20244
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners 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.P2 and P3 notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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 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 that WP(C) No.15571 of 2024 5 the loan was given to the 1st petitioner in the year 2015. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
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.P2 and P3 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 remit the balance outstanding amount in instalments), 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 Bank from the petitioners as on 31.03.2024 is WP(C) No.15571 of 2024 6 ₹76,10,367/-.
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 loan 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 the outstanding amount of ₹76,10,367- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank WP(C) No.15571 of 2024 7 charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioners make payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.15571 of 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15571/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEC.13(2) NOTICE DATED 20-05-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEC. 13(2) NOTICE DATED 15-01-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER SARFAESI ACT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER SEC.13(4) SARFAESI ACT DATED 01-04-2024