Kerala High Court
Abdul Majeed vs The Authorized Officer 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. 13626 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL MAJEED,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIRAYIN, THEKKULLAKANDI HOUSE,
UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
BY ADV K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
(KERALA BANK) KALLAI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM.P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
(KERALA BANK)
POONOOR BRANCH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 673574
SRI P C SASIDHARAN
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.13626/2024 2
N. NAGARESH, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13626 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 Kerala State Co-operative 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 ₹5 Lakhs to the petitioner as
Consumption Loan in the year 2017. 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.P2
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 2017. 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.P2 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 as on 03.04.2024 is ₹4,06,073/- and the overdue
amount as on 31.03.2024 is ₹1,48,144/-.
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
₹1,48,144/- in subsequent consecutive 8 equal
monthly instalments along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments
shall be paid on or before 03.05.2024.
(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) 13626/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 11-9-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SARFAESI ACT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 21-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SARFAESI ACT
