Benny K P vs The State Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 4533 Ker

Kerala High Court

Benny K P vs The State 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. 4037 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BENNY K P
         AGED 55 YEARS
         S/O PAILY, AGED 55, KOZHIMULLORATH HOUSE,
         SENGULAM, VELLATHOOVAL, IDUKKI DIST - 685565

         BY ADV N.S.REHNA


RESPONDENT:

         THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED AUFFICER,
         MEKKATTIL BUILDING, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND,
         ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI DIST., PIN - 685561

         SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH

     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.4037 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 State 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 ₹2.90 lakhs towards KCC Loan,

₹4,33,900/- towards WC Term Loan, ₹2,99,000/- towards

FITL and ₹16,81,000/- towards Over Draft facility to the

petitioner. 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 loans 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.P3 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he 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, 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 respondent, it is submitted that the

petitioner committed default in repaying the loans and

maintaining the advance / credit facility.

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.P3 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 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 ₹29,90,538/-.

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 ₹29,90,538/- in 12

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 29.02.2024 and

the second instalment shall be paid on or

before 31.03.2024.

(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.

(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) 4037/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF TREATMENT RECORDS ON 18/05/2023 Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 10/08/2023 BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12/01/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT