Sibish Augustine vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala ...

Kerala High Court

Sibish Augustine vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala ... 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. 16880 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SIBISH AUGUSTINE,
         AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. K.J. AUGUSTINE,
         KANDATHIL HOUSE, PRAPOYIL P.O., CHERUPUZHA
         VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511.

         BY ADVS.
         C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
         NEERAJA VENUGOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

   1     KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
         REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
         AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 670001.

   2     THE BRANCH MANAGER,
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
         CHERUPUZHA BRANCH, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR
         DISTRICT, PIN - 670511.

         BY ADV M.SASINDRAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2024
                               :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd 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 ₹12 lakhs in the year 2019 and ₹2 lakhs in the year 2023 as Personal Loan to the petitioner. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. The W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2024 :3: repayment of loans fell into arrears. 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 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

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 W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2024 :4: 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2019 and 2023. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

:5:

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 10.05.2024 is ₹14,10,098/- and the overdue amount is ₹7,27,430/-.

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 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.

:6:

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 ₹7,27,430/- in ten equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 24.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2024 :7:

(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 ams W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2024 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16880/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7/11/2023 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERINGOME.

Exhibit P2        TRUE   COPY     OF   THE   NOTICE    DATED
                  12/1/2024      ISSUED    BY    THE     1ST
                  RESPONDENT.