Sabeena vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ...

Kerala High Court

Sabeena vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                  WP(C) NO. 6852 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1    SABEENA
         AGED 39 YEARS
         W/O SHAKKEER, MANGAMBRA HOUSE, EAST MARADY P O,
         MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
    2    SHAKKEER M T
         AGED 43 YEARS
         S/O SAID MUHAMMED THAMBIKUNJ, MANGAMBRA HOUSE,
         EAST MARADY P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 686673

         BY ADV S.DILEEP (KALLAR)


RESPONDENTS:

    1    MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO-556
         KSRTC JUNCTION BRANCH, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686661
    2    MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO-556
         HEAD OFFICE, KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND
         AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 686661

         BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


     THIS WRIT PETITION    (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024,   THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.6852 of 2024
                               2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024 The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Limited to the petitioners, 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 petitioners as Term Loan in the year 2020. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they 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 petitioners.

3

3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy 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 petitioners state that they are 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 petitioners, they 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 petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that WP(C) No.6852 of 2024 4 the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are ready and willing to remit the overdue amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from WP(C) No.6852 of 2024 5 the petitioners as on 23.05.2024 is ₹21,13,319/- and the overdue amount as on 23.05.2024 is ₹13,48,319/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

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

(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue amount of ₹13,48,319/- in 14 consecutive WP(C) No.6852 of 2024 6 and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 24.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioners commit single default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.

(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(iv) If the petitioners make payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioners shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.6852 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6852/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 05/02/2024 TO THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER PERSONS.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 30/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 04/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.