Bindu Rajendran vs Kerala State C O.Operative Bank

Kerala High Court

Bindu Rajendran vs Kerala State C O.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. 14212 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BINDU RAJENDRAN,
         AGED 52 YEARS, W/O RAJENDRAN, KURASSERIYIL,
         KANNAMANGALAM NORTH CHETTIKULANGARA. P.O.,
         ALAPPUZHA, DISTRICT, PIN - 690 106.

         BY ADVS.
              K.M.ANEESH
              K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
              SHASHANK DEVAN

RESPONDENT:

         KERALA STATE C O.OPERATIVE BANK,
         KERALA STATE C O.OPERATIVE BANK,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.104,
         OPP MUNCIPAL TOWN HALL, ALAPPUZHA -REPRESENTED
         BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 688 001.

         BY ADV
              THOMAS ABRAHAM

     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.14212 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 ₹8 lakhs to the petitioner as MSME Term Loan in the year 2021. 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 W.P.(C) No.14212 of 2024 :3: 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 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 2021. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. W.P.(C) No.14212 of 2024 :4:

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 provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 is ₹8,79,158/- and the overdue amount as on 20.05.2024 is ₹3,19,690/-.

:5:

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 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 her liability.

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

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹3,19,690/- in 12 equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if W.P.(C) No.14212 of 2024 :6: any. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 24.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with 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 pays the instalments

         as      directed    above,     any     coercive

proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR W.P.(C) No.14212 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14212/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12-03-2024.