Kerala High Court
Ajithkumar vs Icici Bank Limited on 9 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4833 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 AJITHKUMAR,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O K KUTTAPAN NAIR, C4 NIMBUS CLOUD VILLAS,
NELLIMOODU,MURUKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695302
2 JAYA AJITH
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O P.N VIJAYAN, C4 NIMBUS CLOUD VILLAS,
NELLIMOODU, MURUKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695302
BY ADVS.
S.S.VISWAJITH ANAND
PRANAVE R. ARAVIND
RAKHI V.R.
RESPONDENT:
ICICI BANK LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY MR. SHANKAR JAYARAMAN, AGED 44,
AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIP
MANAGER, MORTGAGE DEPARTMENT, ZONAL OFFICE,
PUSHPAMANGALAM ESTATE, NH BYPASS,
EDAPALLY, PIN - 682024
SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.4833 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the ICICI Bank Limited to the petitioners, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The Bank paid two Mortgage Loans, one Insta
Loan and One Credit Card facility to the petitioners in the year
2020. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made
remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the
financial advance, they could not pay the repayment
instalments promptly later due to financial stringency. The
repayment of loans fell into arrears later. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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.P2 notice.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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
petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loans.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other
go than to proceed against the petitioners invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. The impugned Ext.P2 was issued in these
circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners as on 07.02.2024 is ₹1,27,80,659/- and the
overdue amount as on 07.02.2024 is ₹10,68,539/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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
petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit ₹3 lakhs on
or before 29.02.2024 and another ₹3 lakhs
on or before 31.03.2024 and the balance
overdue amount in three consecutive and
equal monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4833/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN M.C 914/2023
DATED 29-12-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 23-01-2024
