Kerala High Court
M/S Sangeeth Builders vs 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. 15571 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS
DOOR NO.II/2645 A, NEW III/2170
KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, KAIPPALLIKUNDU,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER,
PIN - 676503
2 SATHYANATHAN
AGED 65 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, POTTENDAL HOUSE,
KAIPPALLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
3 VIYAYA.M
AGED 56 YEARS
PARTNER OF M/S SANGEETH BUILDERS, W/O.
SATHYANATHAN, POTTENDAL HOUSE,
KAIPPALLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
BIJO FRANCIS
LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, ZONAL OFFICE,
CM MATHEW & BROTHERS ARCADE,
CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
WP(C) No.15571 of 2024
2
2 CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.
KOTTAKKAL BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, DOOR NO.KM2/2645 A
KAIPPALLIKUNDU P.O., KOTTAKKAL, PIN - 676503
BY ADV SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
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.15571 of 2024
3
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 Catholic Syrian Bank Limited 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 ₹70 lakhs to the 1st petitioner as
Over Draft facility in the year 2015. 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
financial stringency. The repayment of loan 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 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.P2 and P3
notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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 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 loan was given to the 1st petitioner in the year 2015. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
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.P2 and P3 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 remit the balance
outstanding amount in instalments), 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 31.03.2024 is
₹76,10,367/-.
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 loan
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 the
outstanding amount of ₹76,10,367- 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 petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15571/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEC.13(2) NOTICE
DATED 20-05-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEC. 13(2) NOTICE
DATED 15-01-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS UNDER
SARFAESI ACT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS UNDER SEC.13(4) SARFAESI
ACT DATED 01-04-2024
