Geo George vs Kerala Bank Formerly Known As District ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12816 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12816 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Geo George vs Kerala Bank Formerly Known As District ... 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. 41386 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              GEO GEORGE
              AGED 35 YEARS
              PUTHUR AINIKAL HOUSE MADATHIKKARA,
              IRINJALAKUDA P O, PIN - 680121

              BY ADV ANEESH K.R


RESPONDENTS:

     1        KERALA BANK FORMERLY KNOWN AS DISTRICT COPERATIVE BANK
              IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT COOP BANK ,
              IRINJALAKUDA.P.O., BRANCH CODE 00002,
              PIN - 680121
     2        THE MANAGER AND AUTHORIZATION OFFICER
              KERALA BANK FORMERLY KNOWN AS
              THRISSUR DISTRICT COOP BANK,
              IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O.
              BRANCH CODE : 00002, PIN - 680121

              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:
 WP(C) NO.41386 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 Kerala 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 ₹24 lakhs to the petitioner as Home

Loan in the year 2018. 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 medical reasons of

his wife. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. 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 WP(C) NO.41386 Of 2023

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. The officials of the

Bank had informed that the Bank had declared the petitioner's

loan account as NPA. No formal notice was issued against the

petitioner intimating the same.

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

respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that the loan was WP(C) NO.41386 Of 2023

given to the petitioner in the year 2018. 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 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

overdue amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on

08.12.2023 is ₹1,69,972/-.

WP(C) NO.41386 Of 2023

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 overdue

amount of ₹1,69,972/- in 15 consecutive and

equal monthly installments along with accruing

interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of WP(C) NO.41386 Of 2023

such installments shall be paid on or before

08.01.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making

payments as directed above, the respondents

will be at liberty to continue with the 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 makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.41386 Of 2023