Shiju Xavier vs The Special Sale Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 13434 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13434 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Shiju Xavier vs The Special Sale Officer on 21 December, 2023

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                 WP(C) NO. 42321 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         SHIJU XAVIER
         AGED 47 YEARS, S/O XAVIER,
         RESIDING AT CHAKKALAPARAMBIL,
         EDAYAKUNNAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.,
         ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN - 682 027.

         BY ADVS.
              S.JUSTUS
              M.N.VEDARAJ
              SWARAJ P.S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST.,
         PIN - 682 030.

    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         PACHALAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DIST.,
         PIN - 682 012.

         BY ADV
              M.RAGHURAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP            FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME            DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.42321 of 2023
                                :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative

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 ₹14,63,000/- to the petitioner as

Housing Loan of ₹12,00,000/- and Term Loan of ₹2,63,000/-

in the years 2014 and 2017. 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. The repayment of

loan fell into arrears later due to Covid-19 pandemic and

financial problems. 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

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 given to the petitioner in the year 2014 and

2017. 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 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 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 21.12.2023 is ₹21,84,442/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of

₹5,00,000/- within a period of one month.


          (ii)     The petitioner shall remit the balance

          outstanding        amount      in   subsequent

consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments

thereafter, along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.