Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar P.S vs The Authorized 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. 41263 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SUNILKUMAR P.S
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. SHANKARANARAYANAN,
PEROTH HOUSE, CHITHIRA, HASHMI NAGAR,
THALIKULAM, THRISSUR PIN - 680569.
BY ADV B.SABITHA (DESOM)
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
BANK OF BARODA, SHAKTHANNAGAR BRANCH,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 676101.
BY ADV.SRI.K.ANAND, STANDING COUNSEL
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.41263 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 Bank of Baroda 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 ₹4.88 lakhs to the petitioner as Home
Loan in the year 2008. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. 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
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 P2 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. 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 loan was given to
the petitioner in the year 2008. 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 P2 notices were 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 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
outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on
04.12.2023 is ₹4,50,098/- and the overdue amount is ₹1,20,000/-.
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 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 ₹1,20,000/- 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 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.
(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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41263/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF 13(12) NOTICE DATED
05.05.2022 BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 02.12.2023
TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE
