Radhamani M.V vs The Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 4399 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4399 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Radhamani M.V 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. 4561 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1    RADHAMANI M.V
         AGED 68 YEARS
         W/O RAMANKUTTY V.V, VALIYAPARAMBU, ODANUR,
         PARLI PO, PARLI- II, PARLI PG, PIN - 678612
    2    RAMANKUTTY
         AGED 79 YEARS
         S/O VELAYUDHAN, 192 A VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE,
         ODANUR, PARLI-I, PARLI PG, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612
    3    RAMESH KUMAR
         AGED 52 YEARS
         S/O RAMANKUTTY, VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, ODANUR,
         PARLI-I,PARLI PG, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612

         BY ADVS.
         SARATH M.S.
         ARJUN C BHASKAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
         H.P.O ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
    2    THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
         H.P.O ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD- 678001,
         REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER.

         BY ADV.
         SRI. M. SASINDRAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION      (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024,     THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.4561 of 2024
                               2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited to the

petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹8 lakhs to the petitioners as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2020. The petitioners state that

though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the

initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could

not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to

financial stringency and Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment

of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons

beyond the control of the petitioners.

3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to

permit the petitioners 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.P1 notice.

4. The petitioners state that they are 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

petitioners, they 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

petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The

petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and

required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other

go than to proceed against the petitioners invoking the

provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002. The impugned Ext.P1 was issued in these

circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal

reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the

Bank.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel

submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from

the petitioners as on 06.02.2024 is ₹8,01,744/- and the

overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹3,51,705/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the

petitioners have 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

petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹3,51,705/- in six consecutive

and equal monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid

on or before 06.03.2024.

(ii) If the petitioners commit single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioners in accordance with law.