Lenin .P.M vs The Authorized Officer, Union ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7043 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7043 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2022

Kerala High Court

Lenin .P.M vs The Authorized Officer, Union ... on 17 June, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
        FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 19645 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1       LENIN P.M.,
            AGED 44 YEARS,
            S/O.LATE MURALIDHARAN,
            RESIDING AT 3/386 C,
            PERINGADAN HOUSE,
            PIN-683 515, PALLIPPURM,
            VYPPEN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

    2       SHAIBI LENIN,
            AGED 38 YEARS,
            W/O.LENIN.P.M.,
            RESIDING AT 3/386 C,
            PERINGADAN HOUSE, PIN-683 515,
            PALLIPPURAM, VYPPEN,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            ANTONY MATHEW
            RICHIN MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
            UNION BANK OF INDIA BANK LTD.,
            REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM RURAL,
            NEAR KSRTC BUS STATION,
            GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD,
            ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 101.

    2       UNION BANK OF INDIA BANK LTD.,
            GROUND FLOOR, 768, T.B.ROAD,
            NORTH PARAVOOR,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 513.

    3       THE BRANCH MANAGER,
            UNION BANK OF INDIA BANK LTD.,
            GROUND FLOOR, 768, T.B.ROAD,
            NORTH PARAVOOR,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 513.
 WP(C)No.19645/2022

                                2


    4     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO,
          UNION BANK OF INDIA,
          UNION BANK BHAVAN,
          239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG,
          NARIMAN POINT,
          MUMBAI-400 021,
          MAHARASHTRA STATE.

          SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.19645/2022

                                     3




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022

The petitioners, who are residents of

Pallippuram, Ernakulam District, have approached this

Court seeking to direct the respondents to desist from

taking steps to conduct sale of their property.

2. The petitioners state that they have availed a

housing loan of ₹10 lakhs. The property owned by the

petitioners was mortgaged as security for housing loan.

The petitioners have been remitting the EMIs promptly.

Subsequently, due to Covid-19 pandemic and

consequential financial distress, the petitioners could not

make due remittances.

3. Now, the respondents have initiated recovery

proceedings invoking SARFAESI Act, 2002 to realise an

unconscionable amount from the petitioners. WP(C)No.19645/2022

4. The petitioners state that they have already

remitted approximately ₹9 lakhs and if sufficient time is

granted to the petitioners, they will be able to clear the

outstanding dues. In the meanwhile, if the respondents are

permitted to proceed against the petitioners' property given

as security, the petitioners will be put to untold hardship and

loss.

5. The Standing Counsel representing the

respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ

petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material

allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is

pointed out that the petitioners have deliberately defaulted

in making repayment. Apart from the overdue arrears, there

is a default in making current regular EMIs also. As on

date, the overdue amount from the petitioners is

₹2,26,000/-. Therefore, the respondents were justified in

taking coercive proceedings. Ext.P1 is not liable to be set WP(C)No.19645/2022

aside on any of the grounds urged by the petitioners. The

Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted

that taking into consideration the situation in which the

petitioners have defaulted, a very short breathing time can

be granted to clear the dues.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

7. From the pleadings in the writ petition and

arguments made at the Bar, it appears that the petitioners

have been trying to make regular repayments in the loan

account during the initial period. However, subsequently,

due to the Covid-19 pandemic and consequential financial

distress, remittances could not be made properly. The

petitioners' loan repayment tenure ends only in the year

2023. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that

clearing the dues.

8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

i) The petitioners are permitted to repay the overdue

amounts in 10 equal consecutive monthly instalments along

with accruing interest and other charges, if any.

ii) The petitioners shall continue to pay the current

EMIs also along with the afore instalments.

iii) If the petitioners remit promptly the monthly

instalments in respect of the overdue, the respondents shall

defer any coercive proceedings against the petitioners.

iv) If the petitioners commit default in making

payments as directed above, the respondents will be at

liberty to proceed against the petitioners, in accordance with

the law.

Sd/-

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 06.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND AFFIXED ON THE BOUNDARY WALL OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.12.2021 FOR HAVING REMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.49,000/- (RUPEES FORTY NINE THOUSAND ONLY) BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2022 FOR HAVING REMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.