Rasheeda Beegam vs Indian Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 4401 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rasheeda Beegam vs Indian 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. 4609 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         RASHEEDA BEEGAM
         AGED 52 YEARS
         W/O. NAZEER, SHABANA MANZIL, THAIPARAMPIL,
         CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001

         BY ADVS.
         JIBU P THOMAS
         DEVIKA VISWOM


RESPONDENT:

         INDIAN BANK
         P. B NO 3814, MULLACKAL IRON BRIDGE P.O,
         ALAPPUZHA MULLACKAL DEVASOM BUILDING,
         REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 688011

         SRI.S. EASWARAN

     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.4609 of 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 Indian 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 ₹24.5 lakhs towards Housing Loan

in the year 2018, SME Loan towards ₹1.5 lakhs and

₹35,000/- towards Mudra Loan to the petitioner. 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 due to financial constraints. 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 Ext.P1 notice.

4. The petitioner states that she is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, if sufficient time

is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. If the

respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the

Housing Loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2018.

The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

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 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 outstanding / 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 towards

Housing Loan, SME Loan and Mudra Loan is ₹24,37,269/-,

₹52,040/- and ₹18,700/- respectively and the overdue amount

would come to ₹2,28,000/-, ₹39,000/- and ₹1,600/-

respectively (₹2,28,000 + ₹39,000 + ₹1,600).

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 accounts initially. The default in repayment of the

loans 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 ₹18,700/- towards

Mudra Loan within a period of one month

from today and the overdue amount of

₹2,28,000/- and ₹39,000/- towards Housing

Loan and SME Loan in 12 consecutive and

equal monthly instalments immediately

thereafter along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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 of Housing Loan and SME Loan 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 spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4609/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 02.09.2023 AFFIXED ON THE SECURED ASSET