Sunny C.V vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5024 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sunny C.V vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 15 February, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/26TH MAGHA, 1945
                 WP(C) NO. 5679 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SUNNY C.V
         AGED 53 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE,
         CHALUNILATH HOUSE, PIRAMADOM P.O.,
         KAYANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
         PIN - 686 667.

         BY ADV
              DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

RESPONDENTS:

    1    MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         LTD. NO. 556
         KSRTC JUNCTION BRANCH, MUVATTUPUZHA,
         REPRESENTED DY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         PIN - 686 667.

    2    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT,
         MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
         NO. 556, KSRTC JUNCTION BRANCH,
         MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 667.

         BY ADV
              SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5679 of 2024
                                :2:



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the Muvattupuzha Urban

Co-operative Bank 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 ₹33 lakhs to the petitioner as Term

Loan in the year 2021. 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. The repayment of

loan fell into arrears later due to Covid-19 pandemic and

unforeseen setbacks in the business. 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 2021. 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 15.02.2024 is ₹32,76,307/- and the

overdue amount is around ₹3 lakhs.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 account 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount in two equal and consecutive

monthly instalments along with accruing

interest and other Bank charges, if any. The

1st instalment, 50% of the overdue amount,

shall be paid on or before 10.03.2024 and

the 2nd instalment of balance 50% shall be

paid on or before 31.03.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with 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 pays the instalments as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5679/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.10.2023 UNDER SECTION 13 (2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.