Haneefa vs The Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 10642 Ker

Kerala High Court

Haneefa vs The 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. 13855 OF 2024
PETITIONER

             HANEEFA,
             AGED 41 YEARS
             S/O. UNEEN, PULASSERI HOUSE,
             PALACHODU P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679338

             BY ADVS.
             AMJATHA D.A.
             FARHANA K.H.


RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
             KERALA BANK, P.B NO. 8, MANJERI ROAD,
             UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
     2       THE BRANCH MANAGER,
             KERALA BANK, KATTUPPARA BRANCH,
             MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679338

             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.13855 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 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 lakhs to the petitioner as

Overdraft 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 installments promptly later due to Covid-19

pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears. It

happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. WP(C) No.13855 Of 2024

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit

the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly

installments, 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 advance, if sufficient

time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly installments. 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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The WP(C) No.13855 Of 2024

petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.

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 notice 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 make a substantial

payment soon and remit the 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 30.03.2024 is ₹14,79,067/-. WP(C) No.13855 Of 2024

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 advance initially. The default in repayment of the advance

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 ₹14,79,067/- in seven

consecutive and equal monthly installments

along with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any. First of such installments WP(C) No.13855 Of 2024

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

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.13855 Of 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13855/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 22.02.2024