Suresh .A.V vs The Branch Manager Uco Bank Thrissur
2024 Latest Caselaw 9130 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suresh .A.V vs The Branch Manager Uco Bank Thrissur 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. 5863 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SURESH A.V
         AGED 49 YEARS
         S/O VELAYDHAN A.R ANTHIKATT HOUSE
         NEAR TRINITY CONVENT KOLAZHY PO
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680010

         BY ADVS.
         N.D.ARUN DAS
         M.C.CHITHRAKALA
         P.K.PRETHEEP KUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK THRISSUR
         PANICKERS TOWER FIRST FLOOR TUDA ROAD
         ASWIN JUNCTION, TUDA ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT
         UCO BANK THRISSUR ACT
         PANICKERS TOWER FIRST FLOOR TUDA ROAD
         ASWINI JUNCTION, TUDA ROAD THRISSUR, PIN - 680022

         SRI.DEEPAK JOY, STANDING COUNSEL

     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.5863 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 UCO 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 ₹24 lakhs to the petitioner as Home

Loan in the year 2014. 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.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 2014. 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 overdue amount in

instalments, 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 16.02.2024 is ₹20,90,454.33 and the overdue

amount as on 16.02.2024 is ₹2.5 lakhs.

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 the overdue

amount of ₹2.5 lakhs in eight consecutive

and equal monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid

on or before 03.05.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents 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) 5863/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit -P1 THE DEMAND NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18/01/2024.

Exhibit -P2        THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION LETTER OF
                   THE   PETITIONER   IN    NEET  MEDICAL

COUNSELLING 2023, MEDICAL COUNSELLING COMMITTEE .DGHS MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 21/10/2023.

Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/01/2024.