Kerala High Court
Susi George vs The Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank ... on 4 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6279 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUSI GEORGE,
AGED 54 YEARS
ANNE BHAVAN, MANAJANPPARA, MOONAMMOODU,
VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695013
BY ADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
HALIYA T.P.
MAHADEV M.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
HEAD OFFICE: PB NO. 115, M.G ROAD,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.,
PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
HEAD OFFICE: PB NO. 115, M.G ROAD,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD,
HEAD OFFICE: PB NO. 115, M.G ROAD,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
BY ADV NISHA GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Trivandrum Co-operative Urban Bank Limited 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 ₹9.5 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash
Credit facility in the year 2017. The petitioner states that
though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could
not pay the repayment installments promptly later due to
financial difficulties. The repayment of advance fell into
arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
installments, 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.P4 notice.
4. The petitioner states that she is still in a position to
clear the overdue amounts towards the advance, if sufficient
time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly installments. If
the respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioner, she 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
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The
petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required her 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.P4 notice 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 outstanding amount immediately
thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted
that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the
petitioner as on 04.04.2024 is ₹12,38,979/-.
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
advance 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:
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹12,38,979/- in 12
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 04.05.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.6279 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6279/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT
DATED 12.11.2020
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF
MINISTER OF KERALA
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
14.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THESALE NOTICE DATED
11.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
21.01.2024 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
