Salini V vs Union Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 4420 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4420 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Salini V vs Union Bank Of India 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. 4041 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SALINI V.,
         AGED 35 YEARS,
         W/O SUDHAKARAN VANIYAN,
         BATIYAN KOTTU EROLE, MYLATTY UDUMA,
         KANHANGAD, KASARGODE, PIN - 671319

         BY ADVS.
         RAFEEK. V.K.
         VICTOR ANTONY NOONE
         R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL)
         U.M.HASSAN
         SALMAN FARIS
RESPONDENTS:

    1    UNION BANK OF INDIA,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, KSHB COMPLEX,
         VIKAS NAGAR, CHAKKORATHUKULAM,
         KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006.
    2    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         UNION BANK OF INDIA,
         KANHANGAD ECB BRANCH,
         SUNDER RTNA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD,
         KANHANGAD, PIN - 671315

         BY ADVS.
         ASP.KURUP
         SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
         C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
         SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
         RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)

     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.4041/2024
                                 :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 Union Bank of India 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 ₹11,84,786/- to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2016 and ₹5,00,000/- as Top-up

Loan in the year 2016. 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 issued Exts.P1 and P2

notices.

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 loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2016. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices were 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 ₹29,09,522/-

and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹19,17,449/-.

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 ₹5,00,000/- within a period of one month

from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

overdue amount in subsequent

consecutive 10 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.