Hayarunisa.P.A vs The Kodungallur Town Co-Operative Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5034 Ker

Kerala High Court

Hayarunisa.P.A vs The Kodungallur Town 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. 5934 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         HAYARUNISA P.A.,
         AGED 60 YEARS,
         W/O ABDUL KADHAR,
         EDAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE, ERIYAD,
         KODUNGALLUR,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666

         BY ADVS.
         K.S.RAJESH
         M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KODUNGALLUR TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         NO:102, MAIN BRANCH,
         P.O. KODUNGALLUR,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         REPRESENTED BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER,
         PIN - 680664
    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         THE KODUNGALLUR TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         LTD,NO:102,
         HEAD OFFICE, P.O.KODUNGALLUR,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.V.M.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC

     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.5934/2024
                                :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 Kodungallur Town

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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as

House Maintenance Loan in the year 2019. 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 instalments promptly later.

The repayment of loan 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.P2 notice.

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 instalments.

If the respondents is 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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2019. 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 Ext.P2 notice 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 ₹13,12,333/-

and the overdue amount as on 15.02.2024 is ₹4,12,980/-.

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 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 overdue

amount of ₹4,12,980/- in 10 consecutive

and equal monthly installments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges,

if any. First of such installments shall be

paid on or before 15.03.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits 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 amount as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5934/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2018 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S SON Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 29.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER