Geemon Kurian vs Bank Of Baroda
2023 Latest Caselaw 13440 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13440 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

Geemon Kurian vs Bank Of Baroda 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. 43294 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          GEEMON KURIAN
          AGED 47 YEARS
          S/O. KURIAN, PAREKKULAM HOUSE, VAZHEPPALLY P.O.,
          CHAGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686103

          BY ADVS.
          K.SHAJ
          BEENA N.KARTHA
          POORNIMA RAJAN
          C.IJLAL
          ARUN CHAND
          BHARAT VIJAY P.
          MAJID MUHAMMED K.
          MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
          GOPIKA GOPAL
          ARCHANA SURESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     BANK OF BARODA
          HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT P.B. NO. 36, M.C. ROAD,
          THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED
          OFFICER., PIN - 689101
    2     CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
          BANK OF BARODA, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT P.B. NO.
          36, M.C. ROAD, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689101

          SRI.LEO GEORGE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.43294 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 Bank of Baroda 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 ₹19.60 lakhs to the petitioner as

Term Loan in the year 2016. 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

crisis. The repayment of loan 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.P1, P2 and P4 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

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 2016. 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. The petitioner's loan account was classified

as NPA on 08.06.2023. 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, P2 and P4 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 21.12.2023 is ₹27,21,801.76 and the

overdue amount as on 21.12.2023 is ₹2,73,019/-.

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 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 the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹2,73,019/- in five consecutive

and equal monthly instalments. First of such

instalments shall be paid on or before

22.01.2024.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

overdue amount in subsequent consecutive

four equal monthly instalments thereafter,

along with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits any default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.