Kerala High Court
Joji George vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd 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. 4622 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JOJI GEORGE
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O GEORGE VARIKATTU HOUSE
KEERITHODU P.O IDUKKI, PIN - 685606
BY ADV SACHIN RAMESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE, COBANK TOWERS,
NEAR CANTONMENT HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN., PIN - 695033
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,IDUKKI
FORMERLY IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO.4334, IDUKKI, IDUKKI COLONY P. O
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER., PIN - 685602
BY ADV.
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:
WP(C) No.4622 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 Kerala State Co-operative 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 ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner as
MSME Loan in the year 2022. 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 instalments promptly later due to Covid-19
pandemic. 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 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 instalments. 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 2022. 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 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 ₹15,77,852/- and the
overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹2,00,607/-.
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 ₹2,00,607/- 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 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
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4622/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER DATED
24/01/2024 PERTAINING TO THE LOAN,
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31/01/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH E-
MAIL
