Sajeevan.T.T vs The Branch Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 9378 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9378 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sajeevan.T.T vs The Branch Manager 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. 11573 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAJEEVAN.T.T, AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O.THANKAPPAN, THEKKEVEETTIL HOUSE,
         THENNATHOOR, PARAPUZHA, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-,
         PIN - 685583
         BY ADV ANJANA KANNATH


RESPONDENT/S:

   1     THE BRANCH MANAGER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA TOWN BRANCH,
         SREEVALSAM SHOPPING COMPLEX, THODUPUZHA,
         IDUKKI, PIN - 685584
   2     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, THODUPUZHA TOWN BRANCH,
         THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI -, PIN - 685584
         BY ADVS.
         MANOJ G.G
         S.SARATH PRASAD(K/000835/2008)

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.11573/2024                             2




                             N. NAGARESH, J.
                             ----------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.11573 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 State Bank of India 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 ₹14 Lakhs to the petitioner as

Agricultural Loan in the year 2019. 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 later. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

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 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 the year 2019. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 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 22.03.2024 is ₹21,56,142/-.

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 an amount of ₹5 Lakhs within a period of one month from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 11 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) 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.

(iv) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE Sbna/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11573/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT DATED 8.1.2024 Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 13(4) READ WITH RULE 8(1) OF SARFAESI DATED 11.3.2024