Kerala High Court
Renny Joseph vs Indian Overseas Bank 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. 43216 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
RENNY JOSEPH
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O P.V JOSEPH, EDAYADI PUTHEN PARAMBIL HOUSE
S.H MOUNT P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686006
BY ADV AJITH M. JIJI
RESPONDENT:
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
NAGAMPADAM BRANCH, ST. ANTONY'S COMPLEX,
NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM -, PIN - 686001
SRI.SUNIL SHANKER
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.43216 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 Indian Overseas 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 ₹17 lakhs towards Housing Loan,
₹4 lakhs towards Mortgage Loan and ₹2 lakhs towards
Personal Loan in the year 2018 and 2019 to the petitioner.
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 loans 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 and P2 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
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
loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2018 and 2019.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
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.P1 and P2 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 ₹30.05 lakhs and the
overdue amount as on 21.12.2023 is ₹2.89 lakhs.
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 ₹2.89 lakhs in three 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
two 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
respondent 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.
(v) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43216/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
04.08.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID POSSESSION
NOTICE DATED 01.12.2023 ISSUED ON THE
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK
