P.A. Sajad vs The Authorized Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 13620 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13620 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Kerala High Court

P.A. Sajad 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. 43402 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          P.A. SAJAD
          AGED 51 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAWTHER,
          PALOTTU VEEDU, VAYAKKAL P.O., VALAKAM,
          KOLLAM., PIN - 691532.

          BY ADVS.
          M.R.SASITH
          R.K.CHIRUTHA
          ANJANA SURESH.E
          NEELANJANA NAIR


RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          CANARA BANK RETAIL ASSET HUB,
          KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM., PIN - 691506.

          BY ADVS.
          GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
          K.JOHN MATHAI
          JOSON MANAVALAN
          KURYAN THOMAS
          PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
          RAJA KANNAN


     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.43402 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 Canara 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 made financial advances 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 loan / advance

fell into arrears. 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. 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

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 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 as on

21.12.2023 is ₹23,37,416/-.

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 / maintenance of the

account 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 an amount of

₹5 lakhs on or before 31.12.2023.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive

10 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along

with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in making

payments as directed above, the respondent will

be at liberty to continue with 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 ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43402/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S NOTICE DATED 05.12.2023