Kerala High Court
Suneesh K C 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. 43556 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SUNEESH K C
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN , KANDIRUTHY HOUSE PENGAMUCK P.O ,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT ,
PIN - 680544
BY ADVS.
ARUN.B.VARGHESE
RAKHI RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF BARODA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH ,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680503
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
BANK OF BARODA KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH ,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680503
SRI.K.ANAND
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.43556 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 petitioner along with his father availed two
Housing Loans and one Mudra Loan from the respondent-Bank
in the years 2019 and 2021. His father was suffering from
cancer and later the father passed away. 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 installments promptly later. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.43556 Of 2023
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
installments, 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 installments. 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
WP(C) NO.43556 Of 2023
given to the petitioner in the year 2019 and 2021. The petitioner
committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required her 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 about
WP(C) NO.43556 Of 2023
₹21 lakhs and the overdue amount as on 21.12.2023 is
₹2,17,935/-.
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 ₹2,17,935/- in eight consecutive and
WP(C) NO.43556 Of 2023
equal monthly installments along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of
such installments shall be paid on or before
22.01.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits 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.
(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.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) NO.43556 Of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43556/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.12.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 13 (4) OF THE SECURITISATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND
ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITIES INTEREST ACT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
