Kerala High Court
Shine vs Kerala State Cooperative 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. 5905 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SHINE
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SHALIMON,
EREZHATH HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM P O,
METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 669.
2 CHINJU
AGED 34 YEARS, W/O SHINE, EREZHATH HOUSE,
KANDAMKULAM P O, METHALA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 669.
3 SHALIMON
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O KARUNAKARAN,
EREZHATH HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM P O,
METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 669.
4 MINI
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O SHALIMON,
EREZHATH HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM P O,
METHALA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 669.
BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
CLETUS THOTTAPILLY
M.G.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KOVILAKATHUPADAM,
THIRUVAMBADI P O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 022.
W.P.(C) No.5905 of 2024
:2:
2 BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK,
KOTTAPURAM BRANCH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 667.
BY ADV
P.C.SASIDHARAN
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.5905 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative
Bank 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 ₹16 lakhs to the petitioners as
Simple Loan in the year 2022. 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. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to financial
stringency. 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 Exts.P1 and P2
notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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
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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2022. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
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 Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 is ₹17,42,377/- and the overdue amount as on
15.02.2024 is ₹2,69,676/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned 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 account 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 the overdue
amount of ₹2,69,676/- in 10 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. First of such instalments shall be paid
on or before 15.03.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with 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 pays the instalments
as directed above, any coercive
proceedings against the petitioners shall
stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5905/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 28/07/2023.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS UNDER
SECTION 13 (2) OF THE ACT DATED
18/11/2023.
