Sulaiman A.K vs State Bank Of India Represented By The ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 11442 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sulaiman A.K vs State Bank Of India Represented By The ... on 23 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                 1


               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. 16246 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          SULAIMAN A.K
          AGED 62 YEARS
          S/O ABDUL KAREEM, JASI MANZIL, POOVATHOOR P.O.,
          NEDUMANAGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695561
          BY ADVS.
          ARUN CHAND
          VINAYAK G MENON
          BHARAT VIJAY P.
          THAREEQ ANVER K.
          K.SALMA JENNATH
          MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
          NEETHU S.
          ARCHANA P.P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED
          OFFICER
          STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR (SARB),
          L.M.S. COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695033
    2     STATE BANK OF INDIA
          VEMBAYAM BRANCH, P.B.NO.1, KARAMCODE BUILDING, VEMBAYAM
          P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH
          MANAGER, PIN - 695615


          GP- SMT. DEEPA V



     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.16246 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 Bank paid ₹ 15,00,000/- to the petitioner as

mortgage Loan in the year 2016. 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. 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.

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 2016.

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 Exts.P1 and P2

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 ₹15,02,617/-.

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 an amount of

₹3,00,000/- within a period of one month from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive eight

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 pays the amount as directed

above, any coercive proceedings against the

petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE AP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16246/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2024 IN CS NO.14/2024 ISSUED FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER