Sajitha P.M vs The Union Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 10737 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10737 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sajitha P.M vs The Union Bank Of India 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. 15563 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAJITHA P.M.
         AGED 49 YEARS
         D/O THOUDANKATTIL MOIDEEN,
         PO ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680084

         BY ADVS.
         P.RAMAKRISHNAN
         PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
         C.ANIL KUMAR
         PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
         GOKUL KRISHNA
         MANOJKUMAR G.
         ASHOK MENON


RESPONDENT:

         THE UNION BANK OF INDIA
         KUNNAMKULAM ECB BRANCH, XVI/236,
         JOBS SHOPPING COMPLEX, WADAKANCHERY ROAD,
         KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680503
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER

         BY ADVS.
         ASP.KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL
         SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
         C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
         SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
         ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
         B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15563 of 2024
                                 2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Union Bank of India 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 ₹8.19 lakhs towards Vehicle Loan

and ₹9,86,600/- towards Working Capital Loan to the

petitioner in the years 2017 and 2020 respectively. The

petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances

promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial

advance, she could not pay the repayment instalments

promptly later due to financial difficulty. The repayment of

loans 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

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

loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2017 and 2020

respectively. The petitioner committed default in repaying the

loans.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required her 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 Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 12.04.2024 is ₹13,64,000/- and the

overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹2,27,000/-.

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 ₹2,27,000/- 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.

(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.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15563/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 31/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26/3/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN