Kerala High Court
Abdul Rasheed.K.C vs Kerala Bank 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. 13654 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABDUL RASHEED.K.C., AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.SIDDIQUE, THAHA, KINAVAKKAL, KOTTAYAM
MALABAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643
2 HASEENA.P, AGED 46 YEARS
D/O.MAJEED, THAHA, KINAVAKKAL, KOTTAYAM
MALABAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643
BY ADV V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA BANK
(KERALA STATE CO-OPERTIVE BANK LTD),
KUTHUPARAMBA EVENING BRANCH,
KUTHUPARAMBA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN -
670643
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR
REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KANNUR, PIN -
670001
BY ADV M.SASINDRAN
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).13654/2024 2
N. NAGARESH, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13654 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank to the petitioners,
invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹9 Lakhs to the 1st petitioner as
Mortgage Loan in the year 2017. The petitioners state that
though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, they 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 petitioners.
3. Though the 1st petitioner requested the Bank to
permit the 1st 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 notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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
2nd petitioner, the petitioner 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the 1st petitioner in the year 2017. The 1st
petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the 1st petitioner and
required him to clear the dues. The 1st petitioner deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other
go, than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart
the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner is ₹13,19,345/- and the overdue amount as on
26.03.2024 is ₹9,24,785/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been making the repayment and maintaining
the loan account initially. The default in repayment occurred
lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners. The
petitioners have 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 petitioners shall remit the overdue amount of
₹9,24,785/- in subsequent consecutive 10 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 petitioners commits default in making
payments as directed above, the respondents will be at
liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against
the petitioners in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs along
with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioners pay the amount as directed
above, any coercive proceedings against the
petitioners will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
Sbna/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13654/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.8.2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2024.
