Kerala High Court
Arunkumar vs The Branch Manager 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. 14005 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ARUNKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
SOLE PROPRIETOR OF. M/S THANKS 4 COMING TC 1980/6 KAVYAM,
CHITRA NAGAR - 89/D3 SREECHITHRA NAGAR,
PANGODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
2 SARITHA ARUNKUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O .ARUNKUMAR , TC 1980/6 KAVYAM,
CHITRA NAGAR - 89/D3 SREECHITHRA NAGAR,
PANGODE THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
BY ADVS.
K.RAJESWARY
ANIL PRABHA.K
SURYA V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA TC 22/1022(1) RRD COMPLEX CPGP LANE
SASTHAMANGALAM JN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
SMT.R.REMA (STANDING COUNSEL)
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.14005 Of 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 Bank of Baroda 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 ₹15 lakhs towards Overdraft, ₹6,78,045/- towards Housing Loan and ₹11,16,000/- towards two Gold Loans to the petitioners. 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 installments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners. WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 3
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly installments, 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 Ext.P2 notice.
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 installments. 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. The petitioners committed default in repaying the WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 4 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 Ext.P2 notice was 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 overdue amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount due to the Bank WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 5 from the petitioners as on 17.03.2024 is ₹34,16,000/-. The outstanding amount towards Overdraft alone as on 17.03.2024 is ₹15,15,580/-.
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:
WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 6
(i) The petitioners shall remit the outstanding amount of ₹15,15,580/- towards Overdraft in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit 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) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs towards Housing Loan along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners make payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 7 against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
(v) The petitioners may approach the respondents for regularisation of loan account after clearing the outstanding amount towards the Overdraft.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.14005 Of 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14005/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OF WRIT PETITION © NO. 17316 OF 2023 DATED 13/07/2023 Exhibit-P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER THE SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002 DATED 8/02/2024 Exhibit-P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.03.2024 Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER SENT BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 21/03/2024