Kerala High Court
K Bhaskaran vs The Authorized Officer on 12 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15038 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 K. BHASKARAN,
AGED 72 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER M/S BROTHERS INDUSTRIES
SNEHALAYAM PUTHIYAVILA P.O.,
KANDALLOOR,
ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690531
2 PADMAVATHI L.,
AGED 68 YEARS,
SNEHALAYAM PUTHIYAVILA P.O.,
KANDALLOOR ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690531
BY ADV ATHUL M.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY
BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,
PALARIVATTOM ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682024
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SME MAVELIKKARA BRANCH,
BM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN - 690101
BY ADV. SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.15038/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the State Bank of India to the
petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹2,50,00,000/- to the petitioners
as Cash Credit facility in the year 2019. The petitioners
state that though the petitioners made remittances promptly
during the initial repayment period of the financial advance,
they could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later
due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell
into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners to repay the outstanding 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 petitioners state that they are still in a
position to clear the outstanding 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 petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted
that the advance was given to the petitioners in the year
2019. The petitioners committed default in maintaining the
credit facility.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners
and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners
deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the
Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the
petitioners invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Exts.P1 to P3
notices were issued in these circumstances. The petitioners
have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive
proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance outstanding amount
immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be
granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the
Bank from the petitioners as on 11.04.2024 is
₹3,93,76,396/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and
the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been making the repayment and
maintaining the loan account initially. The default in
repayment of the account occurred lately due to reasons
beyond the control of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit an amount
of ₹50 lakhs within a period of one month
from today.
(ii) The petitioners shall remit the
balance outstanding amount in subsequent
consecutive 11 equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iv) If the petitioners pay the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners will stand deferred.
(v) Needless to say the petitioner shall
unconditionally withdraw the Securitisation
Application filed by the petitioner.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15038/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER
SECTION 13(2) ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 18.09.2023 IS ANNEXED
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
19.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.
