Kerala High Court
Sathian vs Yes Bank Ltd,Thrissur 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. 3335 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SATHIAN,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRAN,
KORAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NO.11/419 -A KUTTUR VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680013
BY ADVS.
M.R.REENA
P.S.SUJETH
RESPONDENT:
YES BANK LTD,
THRISSUR,
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
KOSMO ONE,
TOWER C, 2ND FLOOR PLOT NO.14,
3RD MAIN ROAD AMBATTUR,
CHENNAI 600058, PIN - 600058
BY ADVS.
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
SREEJITH K.
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.3335/2024
: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 Yes 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 ₹1,06,12,219/-, ₹15,00,000/- and
₹20,00,000/- to the petitioner as Term Loan in the year
2016, 2018 and 2019 respectively. 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 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 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2016,
2018 and 2019 respectively. 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 ₹1,15,98,313/-
and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹24,35,231/-.
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 an amount
of ₹10,00,000/- on or before 29.02.2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive six equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) 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) 3335/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 03-11 -2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPOPNDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29-12-2023 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER
