Ajimon P.S vs The Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 10377 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10377 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Ajimon P.S vs The Authorized Officer 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. 13392 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         AJIMON P.S., AGED 48 YEARS
         S/O. SUNDARAN, PUTHENVEETTIL,
         MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690506

         BY ADVS.
         T.S.HARIKUMAR
         P.B.SAHASRANAMAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
         SECOND FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
         CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
    2    UNION BANK OF INDIA,
         MAVELIKARA BRANCH, ALAKAPURI COMPLEX,
         MITCHEL JUNCTION, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 690101

         BY ADVS.
         ASP.KURUP
         SADCHITH.P.KURUP
         C.P.ANIL RAJ
         SIVA SURESH
         B.SREEDEVI
         ATHIRA VIJAYAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.13392 of 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 Union Bank of India to the petitioner and his

brother, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹12 lakhs to the petitioner and his

brother as Housing Loan in the year 2007. The petitioner

states that though the petitioner and his brother made

remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the

financial advance, they could not pay the repayment

instalments promptly later due to financial difficulty. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and his brother.

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 to P3 notices.

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

respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioner and his brother in the year

2007. The petitioner and his brother committed default in

repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

his brother and required them to clear the dues. They

deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank

had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner and his

brother invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 to P3 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 remit the balance overdue

amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted

to the petitioner and his brother to clear the dues. The

Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due

to the Bank from the petitioner and his brother as on

11.04.2024 is ₹8,26,800/- and the overdue amount as on

11.04.2024 is ₹2,10,900/-.

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 and his brother have 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 and his brother. They have

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 overdue

amount of ₹2,10,900/- in 10 consecutive and

equal monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid

on or before 13.05.2024.

(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.