Kerala High Court
Aneesha.S vs Bank Of Baroda 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. 42704 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANEESHA S.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
W/O BAHULEYAN,
RESIDING AT AJESH BHAVANAM,
WILLIMANGALAM,
MUNDROTHURUTHU P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691502
BY ADVS.
V.RENJITH KUMAR
S.JAYAKUMAR (PANAMBIL)
MOHAPRASEED MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF BARODA,
BRANCH OFFICE,
KADAPPAKKADA P.O,
KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER,
PIN - 691008
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
BANK OF BARODA,
KADAPPAKKADA BRANCH,
KADAPPAKKADA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC
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.42704/2023
: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 Bank of Baroda 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 ₹18 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2017. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.42704/2023:3:
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 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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that W.P.(C) No.42704/2023 :4: 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 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 notices 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 make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount immediately thereafter, 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 12.02.2024 is ₹20,64,005/- W.P.(C) No.42704/2023 :5: and the overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹3,80,617/-.
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 account 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 ₹3,80,617/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be W.P.(C) No.42704/2023 :6: paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with 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 pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR W.P.(C) No.42704/2023 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42704/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
BOB/VJKLAM/ADV-REM/01/22 DATED
31/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
MANAGER AND BRANCH HEAD,
VADAYATTUKOTTA ROAD BRANCH, BANK OF BARODA Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NUMBERED AS REF:LN/9/2023-24 DATED 23/11/2023 ISSUED BY PRAMOD PRASANNAN, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN MC NO 764/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.