Sreenivasan V vs The Calicut Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 10300 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10300 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sreenivasan V vs The Calicut Co-Operative Urban 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. 15046 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SREENIVASAN V.,
         AGED 61 YEARS,
         S/O. GOPALAN C. K,
         VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KANNANCHERRY,
         KALLAI P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673003

         BY ADVS.
         P.MOHAMED SABAH
         LIBIN STANLEY
         SAIPOOJA
         SADIK ISMAYIL
         R.GAYATHRI
         M.MAHIN HAMZA
         RAYEES P.
         ALWIN JOSEPH
         BENSON AMBROSE


RESPONDENT:

         THE CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
         NO. 1538, KALLAI ROAD,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER CUM
         AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         PIN - 673002

         BY ADV. SMT.MANJU M.

     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.15046/2024
                                  :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 Calicut Co-operative Urban

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 ₹10,20,000/- to the petitioner as

Cash Credit 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 crisis. 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 outstanding 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 he is still in a position to

clear the outstanding 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 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 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 11.04.2024 is ₹17,17,228/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and

the learned 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

outstanding amount of ₹17,17,228/- 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) 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) 15046/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 30.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P2              TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   NOTICE   DATED
                        06.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
                        COMMISSIONER     APPOINTED    BY    THE