Shaiju.J vs State Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 11440 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11440 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Shaiju.J vs State Bank Of India on 23 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 16308 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SHAIJU.J.
         AGED 49 YEARS, S/O JOHNSON,
         KRISHNATHULASI, MUTHIYANKAVU,
         PANACODE.P.O., ARYANAD,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542.

         BY ADV A.S.SHAMMY RAJ


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
         UZHAMALAKKAL BRANCH, PUTHUKULANGARA.P.O.,
         NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695541.

    2    AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC IV,
         4TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
         SANTHI NAGAR,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695001.

         BY ADV.SRI.JITHESH MENON,
         STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.16308 of 2024

                                 :2:

                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the State Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking

the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002.

2. The petitioner had availed a Housing Loan and

two Top Up Loans in the year 2014. 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

unexpected treatment expenses of his sister. The repayment

of loans 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 Exts.P1 to P3 notices.

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 loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2014. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

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 Exts.P1 to P3 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 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 as on 23.04.2024 is ₹35,75,649/-.

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 an amount of

₹5 lakhs within a period of one month from

today.


       (ii)    The petitioner shall remit the balance

       outstanding         amount    in    subsequent

consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments

thereafter, along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) 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.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16308/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2023, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 21.2.2024, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN M.C. NO.209/2024 DATED 6.4.2024 TO THE PETITIONER.