Kerala High Court
Younus Mangalan vs The Manjeri Cooperative Urban 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. 4000 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
YOUNUS MANGALAN,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O UMMER, MANGALAN HOUSE,
ALUNGAPARAMBIL, PULPATTA P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676123
BY ADVS.
MEGHA BIJU
GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J.
RESPONDENT:
THE MANJERI COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER),
MAIN BRANCH COURT ROAD,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA - 676121.
BY ADV. K.VIDYASAGAR
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.4000/2024
: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 Manjeri Cooperative Urban
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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as
Mortgage Loan in the year 2013. 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
Covid-19 pandemic and financial crisis. 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 outstanding 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 outstanding 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 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 2013. 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 notice was issued in these
circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court
filing W.P.(C) No.192 of 2020 and availed monthly
instalments facility. But, the petitioner did not adhere to the
time schedule.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance outstanding 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 as on 03.04.2024 is ₹11,34,702/-.
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
account 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 ₹11,34,702/- in
eight consecutive and equal monthly
installments 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 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.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4000/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 03.01.2024
