Justin Paul E.C vs Canara Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 12429 Ker

Kerala High Court

Justin Paul E.C vs Canara Bank on 22 November, 2023

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 38051 OF 2023
PETITIONER

              JUSTIN PAUL E.C.
              AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O.CLEMENT, RESIDING AT 49 A, KARIS MANOR,
              THUMBANADU LANE, KARAKULAM P.O,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
              PROPRIETOR OF M/S JAS ENTERPRISES, PIN - 690564

              BY ADVS.
              S.JATHIN DAS
              G.S.SANAL KUMAR
              ARUN S.
              S.SOUMYA ISSAC
              K.L.SREE


RESPONDENT:

              CANARA BANK,
              PEROORKADA BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
              REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 695005

              BY ADVS.
              GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
              K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
              JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
              KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
              PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
              RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.38051 OF 2023             2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 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 paid ₹25 lakhs towards OCC Loans in the

year 2018, ₹1,21,463/- towards Covid FITL Loan in the year

2020, ₹2,50,000/- towards WCDL Loan in the year 2020,

₹5 lakhs towards GECL Loan in the year 2020, ₹93,000/-

towards RFITL-2.0 Loan in the year 2021 and ₹6,55,000/-

towards MSME-TL Loan in the year 2019 to the petitioner. The

petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances

promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial

advances, he could not pay the repayment installments promptly

later as the petitioner's business had a great fall due to Covid-19

pandemic. The repayment of loan 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

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 Exts.P1

and P2 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

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

Exts.P1 and P2 notices 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 total 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

31.10.2023 is ₹44,72,323/-

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 an amount of

₹5 lakhs within a period of two weeks from

today. The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in 10 consecutive and

equal monthly installments along with accruing

interest and other Bank charges, if any.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the petitioner

in accordance with law.

(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38051/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE S. 13 (2) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 04.05.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 09.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK