Kerala High Court
Shaiju.J vs State Bank Of India on 23 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAIJU.J.
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O JOHNSON,
KRISHNATHULASI, MUTHIYANKAVU,
PANACODE.P.O., ARYANAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542.
BY ADV A.S.SHAMMY RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
UZHAMALAKKAL BRANCH, PUTHUKULANGARA.P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695541.
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC IV,
4TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695001.
BY ADV.SRI.JITHESH MENON,
STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the State Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The petitioner had availed a Housing Loan and two Top Up Loans in the year 2014. 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 unexpected treatment expenses of his sister. The repayment of loans fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024:3:
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 to P3 notices.
4. The petitioner states that he 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, 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 respondents, it is submitted that W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024 :4: the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2014. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him 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 to P3 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 outstanding amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024 :5: submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 23.04.2024 is ₹35,75,649/-.
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 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 an amount of ₹5 lakhs within a period of one month from W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024 :6: today.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
outstanding amount in subsequent
consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) 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.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16308/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2023, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21.2.2024, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN M.C. NO.209/2024 DATED 6.4.2024 TO THE PETITIONER.