Murukesan P S vs The Area Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 10929 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10929 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Murukesan P S vs The Area Manager 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. 15780 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         MURUKESAN P S
         AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
         PARALIVILA VEEDU, KULAKKADU EAST,
         KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691521.

         BY ADVS.
         AMJATHA D.A.
         FARHANA K.H.


RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE AREA MANAGER
         KERALA BANK LTD, KOTTARAKARA,
         KOLLAM, PIN - 691532.

   2     THE BRANCH MANAGER
         KERALA BANK LTD , KOTTARAKARA,
         KOLLAM, PIN - 691532.

         BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

     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.15780 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 Kerala 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as

Ordinary Loan in the year 2018. 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 financial

constraints. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. 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 Ext.P1 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he 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, 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 respondents, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2018. 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.P1 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 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 is ₹14,89,853/- and the overdue amount as on

12.04.2024 is ₹6,20,308/-.

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 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 ₹6,20,308/- in eight equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. The first instalment 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.