Kerala High Court
Rajan N.N vs Kerala State Cooperative 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. 13070 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAJAN N.N, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN,
NJATTUVETTI HOUSE, PULINKARA DESOM,
KUTTICHIRA P.O., KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680724
2 LEENA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O RAJAN N.N.,
NJATTUVETTI HOUSE, PULINKARA DESOM,
KUTTICHIRA P.O., KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680724
BY ADV A.AHZAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KUTTICHIRA
BRANCH, KUTTICHIRA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680724
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. KUTTICHIRA
BRANCH, KUTTICHIRA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680724
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.13070/2024 2
N. NAGARESH, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13070 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 ₹5 Lakhs to the first petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2017. The second petitioner is the
guarantor. The petitioners state that though the first 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 petitioners.
3. Though the first petitioner requested the Bank to
permit him 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.P3
notice.
4. The first 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
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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the first petitioner in the year 2017. The
first petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the first petitioner
and required him to clear the dues. The first 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 Ext.P3 was 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 petitioners as on 03.04.2024 is ₹7,28,988/- and the
overdue amount as on 03.04.2024 is ₹3,18,600/-.
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 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
₹3,18,600/- in subsequent consecutive 12 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.
(ii) If the petitioners commit 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.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs along
with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) 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) 13070/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
LOAN PASSBOOK
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022
IN M.C. NO.895/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THRISSUR
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.8.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
