Kerala High Court
Siju vs The Kerala State Co-Op Bank Ltd 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. 16339 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SIJU, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O VAREED, MENACHERY HOUSE,
VELLANIKKARA DESOM,
THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680 656.
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH
RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE CO-OP BANK LTD.
MANNUTHI BR , THRISSUR DT.,
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
SAHAKARANA SADAPTHI MANDIRAM TUDA ROAD,
KOVILAKATHUPADAM P.O.,
THRIVAMBADI P.O ,
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680 022.
SRI.AJITH VISWANATH, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16339 OF 2024
2
N. NAGARESH, J
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16339 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the respondent-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 Rs.20,00,000/-. to the petitioner as Simple Loan in 2015 and Rs.5,00,000/- as Covid Suraksha loan in 2022. 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. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 16339 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 Ext.P1 notice.
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 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 loan was given to the petitioner in the years 2015 and 2022. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. WP(C) NO. 16339 OF 2024 4
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 Ext.P1 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 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 23.04.2024 is Rs.25,73,817/- and the overdue amount is Rs.9,11,045/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
WP(C) NO. 16339 OF 2024 5
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 the overdue amount of Rs.9,11,045/- in 10 equal monthly instalments, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 23.05.2024.
(ii) 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 WP(C) NO. 16339 OF 2024 6 accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE AMV/23/04/2024 WP(C) NO. 16339 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16339/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 18-03-2024.
EXHIBIT -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-03-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.
TRUE COPY