Kerala High Court
Abdul Sathar E .S vs The Alwaye Urban Co-Operative Bank ... 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. 9253 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ABDUL SATHAR E.S.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O SYED MOHAMMED,
EMBASSERY HOUSE,
PALLIPRAM MANJAPETTY,
MARAMBILLY ERNAKULAM DT.,
PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH
RESPONDENT:
THE ALWAYE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.1623,
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MARKET ROAD,
ALUVA ERNAKULAM DT,
PIN - 683101
BY ADV. SMT.LEELA R.
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.9253/2024
: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 Alwaye Urban Co-operative
Bank 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as
Over Draft facility in the year 2019. The petitioner states
that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during
the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he
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 petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to
permit the petitioner 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 Ext.P2 notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is 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 respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by
the petitioner, he 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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2019.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required him 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 Ext.P2 notice was 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 outstanding 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 is ₹28,43,000/- .
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
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.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing
that if the petitioner remits an amount of ₹8,43,000/- on or
before 30.04.2024, the respondent shall convert the amount
in Overdraft into Term Loan. If the petitioner fails to make
the payment as directed above, the respondent will be at
liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9253/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 12-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit- P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 23-09-
2023.
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA
3335/2023 IN SA 567/2023 OF THE
HON'BLE DRT 1 WHICH IS RECEIVED FROM
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HON'BLE
DRT 1.
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29-02-2024 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER.
