Kerala High Court
Rani Sardar vs The Kerala State 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. 13693 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
RANI SARDAR
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALLARACKAL HOUSE MALIANKARA
MALIANKARA P.O MOOTHAKUNNAM ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683516
BY ADV PADMALAYAN.P.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
THE KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
MUNAMBAM BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHOIRZED
OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT 2002 NORTH
PARAVOOR MAIN BRANCH MAIN ROAD NORTH PARAVOOR
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682511
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.13693/2024 2
N. NAGARESH, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13693 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 ₹38 Lakhs to the petitioner as
Property Purchase Loan in the year 2017. The petitioner
states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly
during the initial repayment period of the financial advance,
she could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later.
The repayment of loan fell into arrears. 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 notices.
4. The petitioner states that she 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, she 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 2017. The petitioner
committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required her 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 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 is ₹42,76,821/- and the overdue amount as on
03.04.2024 is ₹21,62,926/-.
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 ₹3 Lakhs
on or before 30.04.2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance overdue
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 respondent 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) 13693/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
08.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE PUBLISHED
IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 27.02.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
26.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
27.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK
