Anish Kurian Oommen vs The Authorized Officer Federal Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 9631 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9631 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Anish Kurian Oommen vs The Authorized Officer Federal 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. 13340 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         ANISH KURIAN OOMMEN
         AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.T.K OOMMEN,
         THEREVELIL, ANGADI,
         PATHANAMTHITTA PIN - 686974.

         BY ADVS.
         ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
         K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
         E.MOHAMMED SHAFI


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         FEDERAL BANK LTD
         LCRD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001.

    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER
         FEDERAL BANK, LCRD,
         KOTTAYAM DIVISION, THEKKUMKAL BUILDING,
         T. B ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001.

         BY ADV.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY

     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.13340 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 Federal 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 ₹78 lakhs to the petitioner as

Cash Credit Facility, ₹12,30,000/- as Term Loan in the year

2020 and ₹16,30,000/- as GECL in the year 2022. 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

loans 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.P1 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2020 and

2022. The petitioner committed default in repaying the

loans.

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.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

the petitioner is ready and willing to remit the balance

outstanding amount in instalments, 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

₹98,67,564/-.

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 accounts 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 ₹15 lakhs on or before 20.04.2024.


           (ii)     The petitioner shall remit the balance

           outstanding        amount      in   subsequent

consecutive six 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.