Somu P.M vs The Manager Kerala State Co-Operative ...

Kerala High Court

Somu P.M vs The Manager Kerala State Co-Operative ... 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. 3373 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         SOMU P.M
         AGED 54 YEARS, S/O P.G MANUELPULICKAL HOUSE
         CHERANALOOR P.O KACHERIPADY, PIN - 682 034.

         BY ADVS.
              SUSHANTH.J.
              C.K.PREM RAJ
              PRASANTH V.C.
              VRINDA PAUL

RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         PACHALAM BRANCH PACHALAM, NEAR KATTUNGAL
         TEMPLE ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 012.

    2    THE CHIEF MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
         BANK LTD, PB NO 6515, COBANK TOWERS,
         PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
         PIN - 695 033.

         BY ADVS.
              N.RAGHURAJ
              K.AMMINIKUTTY

     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.3373 of 2023
                                 :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 as House Purchase Loan in the year 2007. 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 some unforeseen incidents. 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.3373 of 2023 :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.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 2007. 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.3373 of 2023 :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.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 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 21.05.2024 is ₹23,19,021/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining W.P.(C) No.3373 of 2023 :5: 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 his liability.

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

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of ₹5 lakhs within a period of one month from today and the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

(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 W.P.(C) No.3373 of 2023 :6: petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) 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.3373 of 2023 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3373/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.10.2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO:

23432 OF 2022 DATED 27.07.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 1.01.2018 TO 24.05.2022.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT

Exhibit R1[a]         TRUE     COPY       OF    THE     NOTICE
                      DATED.30.8.2022     ISSUED BY   ADVOCATE
                      COMMISSIONER.