Surendran.C vs The Gramin Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 9145 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9145 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Surendran.C vs The Gramin 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. 12818 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SURENDRAN.C, AGED 59 YEARS
         S/O. NARAYANAN, UNDAPURAYIL, CHENGLAYI P.O,
         KANNUR DISTRICT- 670631, PIN - 670631
         BY ADVS.
         M.ANUROOP
         MURSHID ALI M.
         ABRAHAM RAJU CYRIAC
RESPONDENT/S:

   1     THE GRAMIN BANK,
         REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,KOYYAM
         BRANCH,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670142
   2     THE BRANCH MANGER, THE GRAMIN BANK, KOYYAM
         BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 670631
   3     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE GRAMIN BANK , THE
         REGIONAL OFFICE KANNUR, KGB TOWER,
         PALLIKKUNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
         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)
         SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

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).12818/2024                                  2


                              N. NAGARESH, J.
                               ----------------------------
                            W.P.(C) No.12818 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 Gramin 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 ₹50,000/- as Cash Credit Loan in the

year 2014, ₹2 Lakhs as Cash Credit Loan in the year 2018,

₹10 Lakhs as Housing Loan in the year 2015 and ₹2.5 Lakhs

as Term Loan in the year 2016 to the petitioner. 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. 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 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 various years. 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 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

in two Cash Credit Loans as on 01.03.2024 is ₹3,08,046/- and

the overdue amount in the Housing and Term Loans as on

01.03.2024 is ₹4,66,828/-.

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 the outstanding amount of ₹3,08,046/- in two Cash Credit Loans along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any, on or before 30.04.2024. The petitioner shall also remit the overdue amount of ₹4,66,828/- in the Housing and

Terms Loans in subsequent consecutive 8 equal monthly instalments thereafter along with accruing interest and other Bank charges.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.