Kerala High Court
Philomina Pauly vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 11 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14975 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PHILOMINA PAULY,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.PAULY (LATE),
APPADAN HOUSE,
NORTH BAZAR.PO, OLLUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
FEMY M.ANTONY
K.J.SUNIL
RESPONDENT:
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE-THRISSUR,
1ST FLOOR, SIB PLATINUM JUBILEE BUILDING,
CIVIL LINE ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 680003
BY ADV.SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.14975/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the South Indian 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 ₹32 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan and an amount of ₹14,75,000/- as Property
Loan in the years 2015 and 2018 respectively. The
petitioner states that though the petitioner made
remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of
the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment
instalments promptly later due to financial crisis. The
repayment of loans 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 Exts.P1 and P2
notices.
4. The petitioner states that she is still in a position
to clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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, she 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2015 and
2018 respectively. The petitioner committed default in
repaying the loans.
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 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 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 as on 09.04.2024 towards the
Housing Loan is ₹35,90,000/- and Property Loan is
16,37,000/- and the overdue amount towards the Housing
Loan is ₹6,28,000/- and Property Loan is ₹3,10,000/-.
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
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 the total
overdue amount of ₹9,38,000/- in 10
consecutive and equal monthly
installments along with accruing interest
and other Bank charges, if any. First of
such installments shall be paid on or
before 13.05.2024.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14975/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION NOTICE IN
CMP NO: 2571/2024 PENDING BEFORE
HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.03.2024
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
12.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK.
