Kerala High Court
Ashraf Mohammed Beeran Kutty vs The Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd, ... 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. 42583 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHRAF MOHAMMED BEERAN KUTTY
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O BEERAN KUTTY , AYISHA MANZIL,
THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR, THAZHE CHOVVA,
KANNUR (DIST.), KERALA, PIN - 670018
2 NISHADA ASHRAF MOHAMMED
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O ASHRAF MOHAMMED BEERAN KUTTY,
AYISHA MANZIL, THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR,
THAZHE CHOVVA, KANNUR (DIST.),
KERALA, PIN - 670018
BY ADVS.
ANIL K.MUHAMED
AJIN SALAM
KRISHNAKUMAR G.
RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER
KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO. 35,
KANNUR (DIST.), KERALA, PIN - 670001
BY ADV M.SASINDRAN
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.42583 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative
Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹27 lakhs to the petitioners as
Business Loans (₹12,00,000/- and 15,00,000/-) in the year
2019. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made
remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of
the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment
instalments promptly later. The repayment of loans fell into
arrears later due to Covid-19 pandemic. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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 petitioners state that they are 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
petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioners in the year 2019. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no
other go than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners as on 19.12.2023 is ₹35,72,766/- and the
overdue amount as on 19.12.2023 is ₹14,14,565/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing
the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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
petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue
amount of ₹14,14,565/- in 12 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any.
(ii) First of such instalment shall be paid
on or before 22.01.2024.
(iii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioners
in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioners pay the instalments as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42583/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
11.9.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P 2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
NOTICE DATED 11/12/2023
