Mohan Raghavan Nair vs The Authorized Officer , Punjab ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9080 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9080 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Mohan Raghavan Nair vs The Authorized Officer , Punjab ... 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. 13567 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:

         MOHAN RAGHAVAN NAIR
         AGED 62 YEARS
         S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, SIVASAILOM, KOKAKKADU
         NORTH, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA
         DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
         BY ADV K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:

   1     THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER , PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
         LTD.
         CIRCLE SASTRA CENTRE, VAISHNAVI TOWERS,
         BYPASS ROAD, KUMARICHANTHA, AMBALATHARA P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
   2     PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
         MAVELIKKARA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER., PIN - 690101
         SRI.SANDEEP ANKARATH

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.13567/2024                             2


                             N. NAGARESH, J.
                             ----------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.13567 of 2024
                  --------------------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Punjab National 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 ₹ 7 Lakhs to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2021. 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 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 2021. 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 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 as on 31.01.2024 is ₹ 6,65,549.04.

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 ₹1 Lakh within a period of one month from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 10 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) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(v) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE Sbna/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13567/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/2/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27/2/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 18/3/2024 OF THE PETITIONER