Bava C. M vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9878 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9878 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Bava C. M 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. 13455 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BAVA C. M
         AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MOIDUNNI,
         CHENNAMKOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         VELLIDIKKUNNU, NELLIKKATTIRI P. O.,
         THIRUMITTACODE - I, PALAKKAD - 679533.

         BY ADV ANN SUSAN GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
         THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         LIMITED, P. B. NO. 21, H. P. O. ROAD,
         SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD PIN - 678001
         REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER /
         AUTHORISED OFFICER.

   2     THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
         THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         LIMITED, PERINGODE BRANCH, PERINGODE,
         PALAKKAD PIN - 679535
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

         BY ADV M.SASINDRAN


     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.13455 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 ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2019. 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 and loss in agriculture. 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.P3 notice.

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 2019. 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 Ext.P3 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 ₹23,63,184/- and the overdue

amount as on 05.04.2024 is ₹18,45,319/-.

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 ₹18,45,319/- in 12 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) 13455/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.07.2022. ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 23.11.2023. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 26.12.2023. ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT