Kerala High Court
Muhammed Raffi H., S/O.Late Hamsa vs The Authorized Officer 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. 5321 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED RAFFI H., S/O.LATE HAMSA
AGED 54 YEARS
SHALIMAR HOUSE, AYOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691533
BY ADVS.
B.MOHANLAL
P.S.PREETHA
ASWIN V. NAIR
AJAY S. KOSHY
JAYAPRABHA ARJUN
BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THAMARAKULAM,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
CANARA BANK, AYOOR BRANCH, AYOOR P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691533
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.5321 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 Canara Bank Limited 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 ₹20 lakhs towards Housing Loan in
the year 2013. 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
installments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) No.5321 Of 2024
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
installments, 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.P2 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 installments. 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 2013. The
WP(C) No.5321 Of 2024
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.P2 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 as on 05.04.2024 is ₹20,83,769/- and the
WP(C) No.5321 Of 2024
overdue amount as on 05.04.2024 is ₹3,55,600/-.
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 the overdue
amount of ₹3,55,600/- in eight consecutive
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
WP(C) No.5321 Of 2024
any. First of such installments 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
the 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
hmh
WP(C) No.5321 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5321/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO:3581619000015 DATED 16/05/2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
03/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
24/01/2024 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER SRI.SHAFFIN S., ADVOCATE,
KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER
