Kerala High Court
Bose. T.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 28 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10065 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BOSE. T.G.,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN (LATE),
THADATHIL HOUSE,VALUPARA,
ANGAMOOZHY.P.O.,SEETHATHODU,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689662.
BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.104,
OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
RANNI AREA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PB
NO.104,OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.
BY ADV K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.10065 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of June, 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 ₹9 lakhs to the petitioner as Consumption Loan in the year 2017. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the instalments 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. W.P.(C)No.10065 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 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 2017. The petitioner W.P.(C)No.10065 of 2024 :4: 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. 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 remit the balance overdue amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the overdue amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 28.05.2024 is ₹5,03,866/-. W.P.(C)No.10065 of 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 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 ₹5,03,866/- in ten equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if W.P.(C)No.10065 of 2024 :6: any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 29.07.2024.
(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) 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 ams W.P.(C)No.10065 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10065/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE NOTICE AS PER S.13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 01.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,20,849/-.