Kerala High Court
Sunitha Sasidharan vs State 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. 15884 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SUNITHA SASIDHARAN
AGED 45 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER,AMRUT HERBAL ESSENTIALS,
SOORAJ NIVAS,SV NAGAR-85, AYATHIL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691004
2 RAJEEV J
AGED 50 YEARS
PARTNER,AMRUT HERBAL ESSENTIALS,
PULINKULATHU THEKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691021
BY ADVS.
V.I.RAHUL
SHIFA LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
KARIKODE BRANCH,KARIKODE, KOLLAM
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, PIN - 686610
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMEC,STATE BANK BHAVAN,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADV SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
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.15884 of 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 ₹18,50,000/- to the petitioners as
Cash Credit 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 difficulty. 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 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 Ext.P3 notice.
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 advance was given to the petitioners in the year 2015.
The petitioners committed default in maintaining the advance.
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 Ext.P3 was 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 12.04.2024 is ₹15,63,274/-.
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 ₹15,63,274/- 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) 15884/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2)
OF THE SARFAESI ACT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 01-07-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK RECEIPT DATED
08-01-2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 09-04-2024
