Kerala High Court
Sunitha Sasidharan vs State 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. 15884 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SUNITHA SASIDHARAN
AGED 45 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER,AMRUT HERBAL ESSENTIALS,
SOORAJ NIVAS,SV NAGAR-85, AYATHIL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
2 RAJEEV J
AGED 50 YEARS
PARTNER,AMRUT HERBAL ESSENTIALS,
PULINKULATHU THEKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691021
BY ADVS.
V.I.RAHUL
SHIFA LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
KARIKODE BRANCH,KARIKODE, KOLLAM
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, PIN - 686610
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMEC,STATE BANK BHAVAN,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADV SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
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.15884 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 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 ₹18,50,000/- to the petitioners as Cash Credit 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 difficulty. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
WP(C) No.15884 of 20243
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 Ext.P3 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 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.15884 of 2024 4 the advance was given to the petitioners in the year 2015. The petitioners committed default in maintaining the advance.
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.P3 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 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 WP(C) No.15884 of 2024 5 Bank from the petitioners as on 12.04.2024 is ₹15,63,274/-.
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 ₹15,63,274/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly instalments WP(C) No.15884 of 2024 6 along with accruing interest and other Bank 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.15884 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15884/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01-07-2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK RECEIPT DATED 08-01-2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 09-04-2024