Shyla Krishnakutty vs The Axis Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 9612 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9612 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Shyla Krishnakutty vs The Axis 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. 11472 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SHYLA KRISHNAKUTTY,
         AGED 58 YEARS,
         W/O. K K KRISHNAKUTTY
         RESIDING AT POTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         NEENDOOR ONAMTHURUTH,
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686601

         BY ADVS.
         L.RAM MOHAN
         M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC


RESPONDENT:

         THE AXIS BANK,
         AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         5TH FLOOR,
         CHICAGO PLAZA,
         RAJAJI ROAD,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.11472/2024
                                 :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 Axis 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 ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2016. 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 instalments promptly later due to

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 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.P2 notice.

4. The petitioner states that she 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 respondent is 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

petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2016. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

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.P2 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 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 as on 21.03.2024 is ₹18,24,906/-

and the overdue amount as on 21.03.2024 is ₹8,56,791/-.

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 overdue

amount of ₹8,56,791/- 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 default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondent will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.