Sadiq Ali K.K vs The Perithalmanna Urban Co-Operative ...

Kerala High Court

Sadiq Ali K.K vs The Perithalmanna Urban Co-Operative ... 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. 17653 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SADIQ ALI K.K
         AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O ABOOBACKER, AGED 35 YEARS,
         KANDUKANDAN HOUSE, CHEMMENKADAVU,
         DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676519

         BY ADVS.
         R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
         K.S.SREEJA


RESPONDENT:

         THE PERITHALMANNA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE
         URBAN BANK LTD
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         URBANK TOWER, PATTAMBI RD, SHANTI NAGAR,
         PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322

         SRI.U.K. DEVIDAS

     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.17653 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 Perinthalmanna Urban 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 ₹60 lakhs to the petitioner as Over Draft facility in the year 2020. 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 difficulty. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. WP(C) No.17653 of 2024 3

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 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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the WP(C) No.17653 of 2024 4 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2020. The petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.

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 outstanding 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 WP(C) No.17653 of 2024 5 the petitioner as on 23.05.2024 is ₹89,58,230/-.

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 outstanding amount of ₹89,58,230/- in 15 consecutive and equal monthly instalments WP(C) No.17653 of 2024 6 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 petitioner commits single default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) 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.17653 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17653/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ISSUED A NOTICE SAYING THAT SHE WILL INSPECT THE SECURED ASSET ON 06/02/2024. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC- 142/2024 OF HON'BLE CJM COURT, MANJERI DATED 03/02/2024