Sareena Veluthedath vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 10532 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10532 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sareena Veluthedath vs Kerala State Co-Operative 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. 12152 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAREENA VELUTHEDATH
         AGED 40 YEARS
         C/O MUSTHAFA VELETHEDATH, RESIDING AT DAFFODILS,
         MUTHIRA KALAYI PARAMBA, NANMA RESIDENCE, AREEKA,
         VTC NALLALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673027

         BY ADV ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN


RESPONDENT:

         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
         REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, PIN - 673002

         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.12152 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's husband, invoking the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner's

husband as Consumption Loan in the year 2021. The

petitioner states that though the petitioner's husband 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 she 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, 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

loan was given to the petitioner's husband in the year 2021.

The borrower committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the borrower and

required him to clear the dues. The borrower deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other

go than to proceed against the borrower 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 03.04.2024 is ₹16,81,178/- and the

overdue amount as on 31.03.2024 is ₹28,850/-.

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's husband 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 ₹28,850/- in five 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.