Kerala High Court
Abdul Sathar E .S vs The Alwaye Urban Co-Operative Bank ... 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. 9253 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL SATHAR E.S.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O SYED MOHAMMED,
EMBASSERY HOUSE,
PALLIPRAM MANJAPETTY,
MARAMBILLY ERNAKULAM DT.,
PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH
RESPONDENT:
THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.1623,
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MARKET ROAD,
ALUVA ERNAKULAM DT,
PIN - 683101
BY ADV. SMT.LEELA R.
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.9253/2024
: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 Alwaye Urban Co-operative Bank 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as Over Draft facility in the year 2019. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding amounts in W.P.(C) No.9253/2024 :3: 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.P2 notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear the outstanding 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, he 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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately W.P.(C) No.9253/2024 :4: 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 Ext.P2 notice was 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 outstanding 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 is ₹28,43,000/- .
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 W.P.(C) No.9253/2024 :5: 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.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits an amount of ₹8,43,000/- on or before 30.04.2024, the respondent shall convert the amount in Overdraft into Term Loan. If the petitioner fails to make the payment as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR W.P.(C) No.9253/2024 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9253/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 12-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit- P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 23-09- 2023.
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 3335/2023 IN SA 567/2023 OF THE HON'BLE DRT 1 WHICH IS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HON'BLE DRT 1.
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29-02-2024 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER.