Kerala High Court
Padmini B.K vs The Kerala State 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. 14616 OF 2024
PETITIONER
PADMINI B.K
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. GANGHADHARAN, SREELAKAM HOUSE,
KUZHIKKAL, KAYANI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670702
BY ADVS.
K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE
R.MAHESH VARMA
RESPONDENT
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
EVENING BRANCH, MATTANNUR, MATTANNUR P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT,
(FORMERLY THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK),
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 670702
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
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.14616 Of 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 Kerala State 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 ₹7 lakhs to the petitioner as Mortgage 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 installments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. WP(C) No.14616 Of 2024 3
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner 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.P1 notice.
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 installments. If the respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The WP(C) No.14616 Of 2024 4 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 Ext.P1 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 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 12.04.2024 is ₹12,54,901/- and the WP(C) No.14616 Of 2024 5 overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹10,31,044/-.
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 loan 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 ₹10,31,044/- in 12 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if WP(C) No.14616 Of 2024 6 any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with the 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 makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.14616 Of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14616/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.