Muhammed Shibil vs Authorised Officer

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Shibil vs Authorised Officer on 21 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

            MUHAMMED SHIBIL
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O., ABDUL AZEEZ LATE PALLIKKAL HOUSE, JUMA MASJID
            ROAD, KOTTIKKULAM BEKAL P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671318.

            BY ADVS.
            K.I.SAGEER
            MUHAMMED YASIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1       AUTHORISED OFFICER
            KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD KANNUR REGIONAL
            OFFICE, P.B. NO.35, KANNUR, PIN - 670001.

    2       SENIOR MANAGER
            KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD UDUMA BRANCH, BEKAL
            P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671318.

            SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024              2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 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 ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner's father as Mortgage Loan in the year 2016. The petitioner states that though the petitioner's father made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the repayment installments promptly later as he was in serious financial crisis. The petitioner's father expired on 30.04.2019. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

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 WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024 3 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 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, 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's father in the year 2016. The petitioner's father 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 WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024 4 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 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 21.05.2024 is ₹28,94,143/- and the overdue amount as on 21.05.2024 is ₹25,51,806/-.

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 WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024 5 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 outstanding amount of ₹28,94,143/- in 12 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 21.06.2024.

(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) If the petitioner makes payments as directed WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024 6 above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE Sru WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18285/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 18.03.2024.

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 20.05.2024.