Aravindakshan vs The Authorized Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 13535 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aravindakshan vs The Authorized 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. 42872 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          ARAVINDAKSHAN
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHIYAVEEDU, PAYANCHERRY,
          IRITTY P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670703

          BY ADVS.
               M.R.SASITH
               R.K.CHIRUTHA


RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THALASSERY
          COORG HIGHWAY, IRITTY, KANNUR., PIN - 670703

          SRI.M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

     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.42872 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 Gramin Bank to the petitioner and his

wife, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹2 lakhs to the petitioner and his

wife 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

constraints. 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 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

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

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. 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 and his wife as on 21.12.2023 is ₹4,96,024/-.

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

outstanding amount of ₹4,96,024/- in six

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

outstanding amount in subsequent

consecutive five 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) 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) 42872/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 26.07.2023