Sujiya vs The South Indian Bank Ltd

Kerala High Court

Sujiya vs The South Indian Bank Ltd 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. 44210 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         SUJIYA
         AGED 51 YEARS, W/O SASINDRAN,
         VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERUVATHANI PO,
         THRISSUR., PIN - 680 523.

         BY ADV
              ALISHA ASLAM

RESPONDENT:

         THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
         REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR, 1ST FLOOR,
         PLATINUM JULBILEE BUILDING, CIVIL LINE ROAD,
         NEAR CHILDREN'S PARK, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.,
         PIN - 680 003.

         BY ADV
              SUNIL SANKAR, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 44210 of 2023
                                :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 South Indian 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as Mortgage Loan in the year 2019. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to financial stringency. 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 instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding. The authorities, instead, started coercive proceedings, invoking the W.P.(C) No. 44210 of 2023 :3: 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 she 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 respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, she 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 in the year 2019. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required her 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 W.P.(C) No. 44210 of 2023 :4: 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 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 22.05.2024 is ₹11,84,142/- and the overdue amount is ₹2,70,363/-.

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 the loan account initially. The default in repayment of the loan account occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of W.P.(C) No. 44210 of 2023 :5: the petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits the overdue amount of ₹2,70,363/- along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any, within a period of one month from today, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred. After making the payment of overdue amount as directed above, the petitioner may approach the Bank for regualrisation of loan account. If the petitioner is not making the payment as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR W.P.(C) No. 44210 of 2023 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44210/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF POSSESSION DATED 31/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.