Baskaran Pillai Unnikrishnan vs State Bank Of India

Kerala High Court

Baskaran Pillai Unnikrishnan vs State Bank Of India on 4 June, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 19922 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BASKARAN PILLAI UNNIKRISHNAN,
         AGED 47 YEARS,
         S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI,
         FLAT NO-10D, BLOCK -04,
         CLEARWAY ASTRUM,
         KANAVALLIL LINE,
         SOUTH CHITTOR,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027

         BY ADVS.
         FAIZEL K.
         SAIPOOJA


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         EDAPPALLY BRANCH,
         MAJOORAN ESTATE,
         STATION KAVALA, CHERANALLLUR RD,
         EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         PIN - 682024
    2    AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
         7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,
         PALARIVATTOM P.O,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

         BY ADV.SMT.S.LAKSHMI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19922/2024
                                 :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of June, 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 Bank paid ₹63 lakhs to the petitioner as Home Loan in the year 2020. 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 loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

W.P.(C) No.19922/2024

:3:

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding 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 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 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 the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2020. The W.P.(C) No.19922/2024 :4: petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately omitted to do so. The petitioner's loan account was declared as NPA in the year 2024. 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.P3 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 as on 04.06.2024 is ₹63,22,781/-. W.P.(C) No.19922/2024 :5:

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 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.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding amount of ₹63,22,781/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or W.P.(C) No.19922/2024 :6: before 04.07.2024.

(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 accordance with law.

(iii) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02.05.2023 Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT DATED 30.05.2024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 11.04.2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER FROM A COMPANY UNION PROPERTIES TO PETITIONER DATED 21.05.2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED11-03-2024.