Salin .T.R vs The Authorized Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 13094 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13094 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Salin .T.R vs The Authorized Officer on 15 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 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 42035 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SALIN .T.R
          AGED 51 YEARS
          S/O KARTHIKEYAN THOPPIL HOUSE OPPOSITE
          KAPPATTIKKAVU TEMPLE S.N. ROAD, EROOR P.O .
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682306.

          BY ADV PADMALAYAN.P.P.


RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          PEOPLES URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD ,51,
          THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682301.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.DEVAPRASANTH P.J
          SMT.SMINI JOSE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.42035 of 2023

                               :2:




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the

coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by

the Peoples Urban Co-operative Bank Limited 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as Term

Loan in the year 2022. 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 an accident met by him and he

was subjected to an operation. 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. On

behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to

the petitioner in the year 2022. 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 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.

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 is

₹9,58,859/- and the overdue amount as on 14.12.2023 is

₹1,26,519/-.

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 ₹1,26,519/- in 10 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

The first instalment shall be made on or before

15.01.2024.

(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.