Paulachan V.P vs The Authorized Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 12883 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 12883 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Paulachan V.P 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. 38825 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          PAULACHAN V.P
          AGED 59 YEARS, S/O PAILAPPAN,
          VALLOORAN HOUSE, KONOOR P.O.,
          KORATTY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680308.

          BY ADVS.
          M.R.SASITH
          ANJANA SURESH.E


RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD THRISSUR DIVISION.
          1ST FLOOR, CHENCHERY TOWER,
          THRISSUR- ERNAKULAM HIGH ROAD,
          OLLUR, THRISSUR., PIN - 680306.

          BY ADVS.
          P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
          SREEJITH K.


     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.38825 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 Federal Bank to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The petitioner availed two Vehicle Loans, two

Agricultural Loans and ECLGS Loan. 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 financial constraints.

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 Ext.P1

notice.

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. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. 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 Ext.P1 notice was issued in

these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal

reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

6. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the

petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment

soon and remit the balance 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 22.11.2023 is

₹1 Crore 95 lakh.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of

₹10 lakhs on or before 12.12.2023 and

₹20 lakhs on or before 15.01.2024.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

amount in subsequent consecutive 10 equal

monthly instalments thereafter, along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) After paying the amount of ₹10 lakhs and

₹20 lakhs as directed in Clause (i) above, the

petitioner may approach the respondent to

release the two vehicles lifting the

hypothecation.

(iv) 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.