Kerala High Court
M. Mohanan vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... 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. 11498 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M. MOHANAN,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O RAMUNNI.P,
MODAKKUDIYAN HOUSE MADAYI PARA,
KEEYACHAL ROAD, (P.O) PAZHAYANGADI,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670303
BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,
PAZHAYANGADI BRANCH,
PAZHAYANGADI (PO),
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670304
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (SARFAESI ACT),
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE,
KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670001
BY ADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
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.11498/2024
: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 Kerala State Co-operative
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 ₹3,30,000/- to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2017. 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. 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 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 2017. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required him/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.P1 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 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 04.04.2024 is ₹5,37,912/-.
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 ₹5,37,912/- 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
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) 11498/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.01.2024.
