Kerala High Court
M. Prasad vs The Authorized Officer/Deputy General ... 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. 1347 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M. PRASAD
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT MENOTH HOUSE,
EDAKKUNNI, OLLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
BY ADV RAMEEZ NOOH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
(ERSTWHILE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK),
THRISSUR CREDIT PROCESSING CENTRE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
OLLUR BRANCH, OLLUR P.O. THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 680306
BY ADV SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN
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.1347 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 Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited 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 a Simple Loan to the petitioner in
the year 2017. 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 difficulty. 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 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
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 in the year 2017. 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 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 remit the balance overdue
amount in instalments, 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 13.03.2024 is ₹13,07,804/- and the
overdue amount as on 13.03.2024 is ₹5,93,630/-.
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 the overdue
amount of ₹5,93,630/- 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.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to
approach the Bank for a One Time
Settlement in the matter, if such a Scheme is
available with the Bank, provided that should
be without violating the directions for
payment given herein.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1347/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.
03.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER
