Ratheesh V.R vs The Authorised Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 12752 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12752 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Ratheesh V.R vs The Authorised Officer 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. 41225 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         RATHEESH V.R
         AGED 42 YEARS, S/O RAJAN, VANNERI HOUSE,
         VELAPPAYA ROAD, M.G KAVU P.O, THRISSUR,
         PIN - 680 581.

         BY ADV
              N.K.MOHANLAL


RESPONDENT:

         THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         THE THRISSUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR.,
         PIN - 680 001.

         BY ADVS.
              DEVAPRASANTH P.J
              SMINI JOSE(K/262/2015)

     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.41225 of 2023
                                :2:




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved

by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Thrissur Urban 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 ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing

Loan in the year 2016. 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. The repayment of loan fell

into arrears later. 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 P3 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

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. 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 2016. The petitioner committed default in

repaying the loan.

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 P3 were issued in these circumstances. The

petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the

coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. The 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 Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due

to the Bank from the petitioner as on 06.12.2023 is ₹35,25,378/-

and the overdue amount as on 06.12.2023 is ₹13,43,836/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹13,43,836/- in 10 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any.

(ii) First of such instalment shall be paid on or

before 08.01.2024.

(iii) If the petitioner commits 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.

(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs

along with the aforesaid payments.

(v) If the petitioner pays the instalments as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

(vi) S.A No.572/2022 in the Debts Recovery

Tribunal-2, Ernakulam shall be withdrawn by

the petitioner in view of the reliefs granted to

the petitioner in this writ petition.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41225/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit - P1 A TRUE COPY NOTICE DATED 05/11/2020 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT.

Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF SA 572/2022 OF DRT-2, ERNAKULAM WITHOUT DOCUMENTS DATED 12/11/2022.

Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 01/12/23 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.