Jafar Sadique Thangal vs State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 13108 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13108 Ker
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Jafar Sadique Thangal vs State Bank Of India 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. 19984 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          JAFAR SADIQUE THANGAL, AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O POOKOYA THANGAL, THANGE KANDIYIL HOUSE,
          NARIKKOTTUMCHAL, KARANDODE P O,
          KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE-673508.

          BY ADV E.V.MOLY


RESPONDENT:

          STATE BANK OF INDIA
          ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
          40/947, 1ST FLOOR, R S BUILDING,
          METRO PILLAR NO.697,
          OPPOSITE MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND,
          M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

          BY ADV S.EASWARAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.19984 of 2022
                             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 State Bank of India 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 ₹21 lakhs to the petitioner as Over

Draft facility in the year 2014. 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 advance 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.P2 and P3 notices.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the advance, 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

advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2014. The

petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.

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.P2 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 Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial

payment soon and remit the balance outstanding 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 12.12.2023 is ₹33,27,075/-.

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

advance 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 an amount of

₹5 lakhs by 30.12.2023.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount on or before 31.03.2024.

(iii) If the petitioner commits any default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondent will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to

approach the Bank for availing OTS in the

meanwhile, without violating the payment

schedule as directed above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 21.05.2022 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 30.05.2022.