Kerala High Court
Narayanan Thottiyil vs Kottakkal Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 3 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12264 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NARAYANAN THOTTIYIL,
AGED 65 YEARS
SON OF GOPINATHAN T. THOTTIYIL HOUSE,
VENKULAM, OORAKAM MELMURI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,, PIN - 676519
BY ADVS.
A.S.DILEEP
P.BINOD
K.Y.SUDHEENDRAN
SUSEELA DILEEP
SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER
K.N.HARISHANKAR
RESPONDENT:
KOTTAKKAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.1378, HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAPADY, KOTTAKKAL
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
DEVAPRASANTH P.J
SMINI JOSE(K/262/2015)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.12264 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kottakkal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited 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
Special Mortgage Loan 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
financial stringency. 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 Ext.P4 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
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
loan 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. Ext.P4 Sale Notice dated 04.03.2024 was issued in
these circumstances. Sale is scheduled to be held on
23.04.2024. 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 as on 03.04.2024 is ₹20,52,838/- and the
overdue amount as on 03.04.2024 is ₹5,26,337/-.
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 loan
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 ₹2 lakhs on or
before 22.04.2024 and the balance overdue
amount in six consecutive and equal monthly
instalments thereafter along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12264/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF MR.
ANOOP DATED 14/08/2020 ISSUED BY ALMAS
HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKAL.
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 01/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE AMRITA
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH CENTRE.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
06/07/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.(C) 10669 OF 2021.
Exhibit.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
04/03/2024
