Aravindan.E.P vs The Authorized Officer The Kerala Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4392 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aravindan.E.P vs The Authorized Officer The Kerala Bank ... on 6 February, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                 WP(C) NO. 4446 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         ARAVINDAN E.P.,
         AGED 46 YEARS,
         S/O CHANDUKUTTY,
         RESIDING AT EDATHUM PADIKKAL HOUSE,
         C.K.NAGAR,CHEMMAD, THIRURANGADI .P.O,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306

         BY ADVS.
         K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
         ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
         E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
         PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
         KRISHNAPRIYA R.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         THE KERALA BANK LIMITED,
         (ERSTWHILE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
         BANK) RECOVERY SECTION,
         P.B.NO: 8., MANJERI ROAD,
         UP- HILL MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 676505
    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
         THE KERALA BANK LIMITED,
         (ERSTWHILE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
         BANK) CHEMMAD BRANCH,
         CHEMMAD P.O.,
         MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 676306

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.4446/2024
                               :2:




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the Kerala Bank Ltd. 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 ₹21 lakhs to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2017. 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. 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 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.P1 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 2017. 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.P1 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 06.02.2024 is ₹35,43,029/-

and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹18,80,309/-.

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 ₹18,80,309/- in 12 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 06.03.2024.

(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) 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 SR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4446/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO:

KSCB/MPM/SAR/CMD/0903446015120067/202 3-24 DATED 05.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE KERALA BANK LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER.