Kerala High Court
Syam S.L vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 8 December, 2023
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41292 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SYAM S.L
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE SAKTHIDHARAN PILLA,
NANDANAM, PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHY P.O.,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690520.
2 LALITHAMMA T.
AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE SAKTHIDHARAN PILLA,
NANDANAM, PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHY P.O.,
SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690520.
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
NABIL KHADER
KARTHIKA SAROJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
KOLLAM BRANCH, ANADAVALLEESWARAM,
KOLLAM, PIN: 691 013
REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA MANAGER.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
KERALA STASTE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
KOLLAM BRANCH, ANANDAVALLEESWARAM,
KOLLAM,, PIN - 691013.
BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.41292 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2023
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made
by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioners as
Mortgage 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 cancer
treatment of the father of the 1st petitioner. The repayment of loan
fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control
of the petitioners.
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.P2
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 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 2
notice 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 make a substantial payment
soon and remit the balance overdue amount immediately
thereafter, 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 the petitioners as on
08.12.2023 is ₹14,26,630/- and the overdue amount as on
08.12.2023 is ₹5,85,058/-.
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 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 ₹5,85,058/- in 10 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
The first instalment shall be paid on or before
08.01.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in making
payments as directed above, the respondents
will be at liberty to continue with 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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41292/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.02.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1SDT RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.09.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
