Saithalavi vs Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 10528 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10528 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Saithalavi vs Authorised 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. 12375 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAITHALAVI,
         AGED 61 YEARS
         S/O MUHAMMED, MOOCHIKKAL (HOUSE),
         THAIYALINGAL POST, NANNAMBRA,
         MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676320

         BY ADV M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR


RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (
         ERSTWHILE MDC BANK), PB.NO 8,
         MANJERI ROAD, UP-HILL,MALAPPURAM,
         PIN - 676505

         BY ADV GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA


     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.12375 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 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 to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan 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

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 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 26.03.2024 is ₹41,23,509/- and the

overdue amount as on 26.03.2024 is ₹18,33,145/-.

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 ₹18,33,145/- 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

respondent will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.