Vishnu Vijayan vs Dcb Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 9144 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9144 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Vishnu Vijayan vs Dcb 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. 42030 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

    1    VISHNU VIJAYAN
         AGED 33 YEARS
         S/O.VIJAYAN A.V, RAJANI NIVAS, ETTUMANOOR,
         PUNNATHARA WEST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
    2    REVATHY PADMANABHAN
         AGED 30 YEARS
         W/O.VISHNU VIJAYAN, RAJANI NIVAS, ETTUMANOOR,
         PUNNATHARA WEST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631
    3    LATHA VIJAYAN
         AGED 62 YEARS
         W/O.VIJAYAN A.V, RAJANI NIVAS, ETTUMANOOR,
         PUNNATHARA WEST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686631

         BY ADVS.
         BINIYAMIN K.S.
         T.M.NEZLA


RESPONDENT:

         DCB BANK LTD
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM KUMILY ROAD,
         KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686004

         BY ADVS.
         B.S.SURESH KUMAR
         ASHLEY JOHN(K/000719/2015)


     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.42030 of 2023
                            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 DCB Bank Limited 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 to the petitioners as

Housing Loans in the year 2021. 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 due to

financial stringency. The repayment of loans fell into arrears

later. It 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 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 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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that

the loans were given to the petitioners in the year 2021. The

petitioners committed default in repaying the loans.

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 Ext.P1 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 remit the balance

overdue amount in instalments, 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 is ₹20,81,275/- (₹2,22,420/- +

₹18,58,855/-) and the overdue amount is ₹2,57,545/-

(₹28,349/- + ₹2,29,196/-).

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 ₹2,57,545/- (₹28,349/- +

₹2,29,196/-) in six 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 petitioners commit single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondent 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 spk