Afsath Muhammed vs Authorised Officer , Kerala State ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9689 Ker

Kerala High Court

Afsath Muhammed vs Authorised Officer , Kerala State ... 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. 12965 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         AFSATH MUHAMMED
         AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED SHAREEF V.K
         VATTIKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PUNNASSERY,
         KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673585.

         BY ADVS.
         K.I.SAGEER
         MUHAMMED YASIL


RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
         RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, P.B.NO.503,
         KALLAYI ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O,
         KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673002.

         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.12965 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 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 ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2014. 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 constraints. 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.P1 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 2014. 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.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 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 is ₹21,36,104/- and the overdue

amount as on 31.03.2024 is ₹4,35,272/-.

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 the overdue

amount of ₹4,35,272/- in 10 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. The first instalment shall be paid on or

before 06.05.2024.

(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.

(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if

any, against the petitioner shall stand

deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12965/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT