Chandran.E.M vs The Authorized Officer And Chief ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9774 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9774 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Chandran.E.M vs The Authorized Officer And Chief ... 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. 13866 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         CHANDRAN.E.M,
         AGED 47 YEARS
         S/O. MADHAVAN, IRUMBUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KEECHERI,
         ARALAM.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670704

         BY ADVS.
         CIBI THOMAS
         ANSIA K.A.
         AISHWARYA SHIVAKUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER,
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK, K.G.B TOWER,
         PALLIKUNNU.P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
    2    KERALA GRAMIN BANK,
         KEEZHPALLY BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         KEEZPALLY.P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670704

         BY ADV SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

     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.13866 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 Gramin 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 ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as

Personal Loan in the year 2016. 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 financial

difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

4. The petitioner states that he 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

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 2016. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

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 Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 29.03.2024 is ₹11,36,330/-.

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 loan

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 ₹2.5 lakhs on

or before 30.04.2024 and the balance

outstanding amount in 10 consecutive and

equal monthly instalments thereafter along

with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents 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 spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13866/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.01.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE ACT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 26.03.2024 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13 (4) OF THE ACT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VISA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER