Kerala High Court
Sajan Mathew vs Canara 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. 8036 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJAN MATHEW
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW, KUZHIYATH HOUSE, MEENADOM KARA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686515
2 SINDHU SAJAN
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. SAJAN MATHEW, KUZHIYATH HOUSE,
MEENADOM KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686515
BY ADVS.
A.C.DEVASIA
MATHEW DEVASSI
ANCY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 CANARA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ERICAUD BRANCH,
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686011
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CANARA BANK, ERICAUD BRANCH, ERICAUD,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686011
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
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.8036 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Canara 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 ₹18 lakhs towards Housing Loan in
the year 2015 and ₹3 lakhs towards Home Loan in the year
2016 to the petitioners. 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 installments promptly later due to Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It
WP(C) No.8036 Of 2024
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy
monthly installments, 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 P3 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 installments. If
the respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioners, they 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
WP(C) No.8036 Of 2024
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioners in the years 2015 and
2016. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners 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 P3 notices 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
WP(C) No.8036 Of 2024
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners as on 03.04.2024 is ₹27,55,764/- and the
overdue amount as on 03.04.2024 is ₹3,94,966/-.
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 of the loan
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 petitioners 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 ₹3,94,966/- in seven consecutive
WP(C) No.8036 Of 2024
and equal monthly installments 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 petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.8036 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8036/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.
2779/SF/662/5/2023 DATED 7.2.2023 SENT
BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 3.1.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.2.2024
SENT BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO
THE PETITIONERS IN M.C. NO., 94/2024
