Kerala High Court
Kadeeja vs The Authorised Officer 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. 4488 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KADEEJA,
AGED 68 YEARS,
W/O SAIDUMOHAMMED,
VALIYAKATH HOUSE,
PALLIPRAM DESOM,
VALAPAD VILLAGE,
KARAYAVATTOM P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYATC
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
(THRISSUR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK)
THRIPRAYAR BRANCH,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
2 THE KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
(THRISSUR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK)
THRIPRAYAR BRANCH, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PIN - 680567
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
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.4488/2024
: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 State Co-operative
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 ₹30 lakhs to the petitioner as
Simple Loan in the year 2017. 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 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.
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 consequently Ext.P1 order
was issued.
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 installments.
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 2017. 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. 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 order 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 ₹11,32,558/-
and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹9,68,830/-.
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
outstanding amount of ₹11,32,558/- 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) 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) 4488/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.08.2022 IN M.C.NO.314/2022 ON THE
FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THRISSUR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUE TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 03.02.2024 BY THE PETITIONER
AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT
