Kerala High Court
Aneesha.S vs Bank Of Baroda 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. 42704 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANEESHA S.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
W/O BAHULEYAN,
RESIDING AT AJESH BHAVANAM,
WILLIMANGALAM,
MUNDROTHURUTHU P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691502
BY ADVS.
V.RENJITH KUMAR
S.JAYAKUMAR (PANAMBIL)
MOHAPRASEED MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF BARODA,
BRANCH OFFICE,
KADAPPAKKADA P.O,
KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER,
PIN - 691008
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
BANK OF BARODA,
KADAPPAKKADA BRANCH,
KADAPPAKKADA P.O,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691008
BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC
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.42704/2023
: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 Bank of Baroda 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 ₹18 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2017. 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
Covid-19 pandemic. 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 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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
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 notices 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 make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue 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 12.02.2024 is ₹20,64,005/-
and the overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹3,80,617/-.
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
account 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 ₹3,80,617/- in 10 consecutive
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges,
if any. First of such installments shall be
paid on or before 13.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with 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 pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42704/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
BOB/VJKLAM/ADV-REM/01/22 DATED
31/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
MANAGER AND BRANCH HEAD,
VADAYATTUKOTTA ROAD BRANCH, BANK OF
BARODA
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NUMBERED
AS REF:LN/9/2023-24 DATED 23/11/2023
ISSUED BY PRAMOD PRASANNAN, ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER IN MC
NO 764/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
