Biju G vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9867 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9867 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Biju G vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ... on 5 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 14230 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BIJU G
         AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHA PILLAI
         PARAYARUVILA VEEDU CHITTAYAM INCHAVILA PO,
         PANAYAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM (DIST) - 691601.

         BY ADV M.RAJESH


RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA
         BANK) REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
         ANCHALUMMOODU MAIN BRANCH
         MATHAKADA BUILDING PERINADU PO,
         KOLLAM, PIN - 691601.

   2     THE BRANCH MANAGER
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK)
         ANCHALUMMOODU MAIN BRANCH MATHAKADA BUILDING
         PERINADU PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601.

         BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.14230 of 2024

                               :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th 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 ₹3.5 lakhs to the petitioner as

Consumption Loan in the year 2020. 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 unprecedented physical ailments. 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 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 2020. 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 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 ₹5,12,810/- and the overdue

amount as on 04.04.2024 is ₹3,35,517/-.

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 ₹3,35,517/- 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

respondents 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) 14230/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.02.2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK UNDER SECTION 13(4) RULE 8(1) OF THE ACT SARFEISI ACT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE RESPONDENTS NO. KB/AMDM/SAR/716/2023- 24 DATED 05.03.2024