Benedict.E vs State Bank Of India

Kerala High Court

Benedict.E vs State Bank Of India 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. 17833 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BENEDICT.E
         AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ESSAKKIYAS,
         KOIPPALLIVILAKOM, SOUTH KOLLEMKODE,
         POZHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN - 695 013.

         BY ADV
              LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

    2    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         RETAIL ASSET CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE-II,
         PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

    3    BRANCH MANAGER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, POZHIYOOR BRANCH,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.

         BY ADV
              JITHESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17833 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 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 ₹8,28,501/- to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2010. 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 due to Covid-19 pandemic. 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 W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2024 :3: 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.P2 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 2010. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2024 :4: 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.P2 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 20.05.2024is ₹9,58,514/- and the overdue amount is ₹2,77,472/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank. W.P.(C) No.17833 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 of the loan 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 his liability.

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

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹2,77,472/- in 10 equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 21.06.2024.

:6:

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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 pays the instalments

         as      directed    above,     any     coercive

proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17833/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION WARRANT ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 09.04.2024.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.05.2024.