T.R.Suresh vs 1. The Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative ...

Kerala High Court

T.R.Suresh vs 1. The Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative ... on 22 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 18067 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         T.R.SURESH
         AGED 43 YEARS
         S/O. REVEENDRAN, THEKKOOTT HOUSE,
         MELEPATT DESOM, KUMARANALLUR VILLAGE,
         THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680590

         BY ADVS.
         N.L.BITTO
         MITHUL T ANTO


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
         IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680121
    2    AUTHORISED OFFICER
         THE IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         HEAD OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121

         BY ADVS.
         DEVAPRASANTH P.J
         SMINI JOSE(K/262/2015)


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.18067 of 2024
                               2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Irinjalakuda Town Co-operative Bank Limited 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as Long Term 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 instalments promptly later due to financial stringency. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. 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 WP(C) No.18067 of 2024 3 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 2019. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. WP(C) No.18067 of 2024 4

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 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 outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 22.05.2024 is ₹16,14,397/- and the overdue amount as on 22.05.2024 is ₹10,15,021/-. WP(C) No.18067 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 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 overdue amount of ₹10,15,021/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid WP(C) No.18067 of 2024 6 on or before 24.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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) 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 spk WP(C) No.18067 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18067/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE 13(2) NOTICE UNDER SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 30/4/2024