Kerala High Court
Manju.M vs M/S.Indusind Bank Ltd 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. 5532 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MANJU M.,
AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O MAHESH, 2/245,
MARUTHARA THAKAIKKAL PUTHENVEEDU,
THERANI, ANAVOOR POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695124
BY ADVS.
AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
G.P.SHINOD
GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
GAYATHRI S.B.
ATUL MATHEWS
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S.INDUSIND BANK LTD.,
GOWRINARAYAN, 40, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
OPPOSITE NEW JAYALAKSHMI SILK, SHENOYS,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 682035
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
INDUSIND BANK, FIRST FLOOR,
AVN SQUARE, ALUMOODU JUNCTION,
NEYYATTINKKARA POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695121
BY ADV. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
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.5532/2024
: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 Induslnd 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 ₹23 lakhs to the petitioner as
Vehicle Loan in the year 2018. 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. 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 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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2018. 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. The petitioner's loan account was
declared as NPA in the year 2021. 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 notice was
issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not
advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive
proceedings initiated by the Bank. The possession of the
vehicle was taken over by the respondents on 09.02.2024.
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 as on 05.04.2024 is ₹21,48,626/-
and the overdue amount as on 05.04.2024 is ₹2,86,536/-.
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
account 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 ₹2,86,536/- in eight consecutive
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges,
if any. First of such installments shall be
paid on or before 08.04.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner pays first instalment
as directed above, the vehicle shall be
released to the petitioner.
(iii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
petitioner shall surrender the vehicle.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5532/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NO: KL 19 K 3232 .
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04/03/2023 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN MC
NO: 84/2023.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 07/02/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
