Jose Prakash S L vs State Bank Of India, Represented By Its ...

Kerala High Court

Jose Prakash S L vs State Bank Of India, Represented By Its ... 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. 18128 OF 2024
                 MC NO.113 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF
                             CYBER CRIME
PETITIONER:

               JOSE PRAKASH S L
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O SALTER, NANO VILLA, KUDUMBANOOR,
               NEMOM. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN - 695020

               BY ADV RAJITHA V.K


RESPONDENTS:

    1          STATE BANK OF INDIA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
               SARB, LMS COMPOUND,
               VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695033

    2          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               STATE BANK OF INDIA, SARB,
               LMS COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -,
               PIN - 695033

               BY SRI. JITHESH MENON, 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.18128 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 ₹34,00,000/- to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2019. 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 installments promptly later due to serious life-threatening disease and medical expenses. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024 3

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding amounts in easy monthly installments, 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 Advocate Commissioner 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 installments. 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 2019. The WP(C) NO.18128 OF 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 2023. 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 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 WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024 5 the petitioner as on 20.05.2024 is ₹36,86,417/-.

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 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 ₹36,86,417/- in twelve consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024 6 charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 21.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents 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 above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE DCS WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18128/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 28-03-2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 29-04-2024