Kerala High Court
Sivadas A vs The Palakkad Co-Operative Urban 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. 39793 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SIVADAS A.,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O. AARU 18/55,
SIVABHAVANAM, KENATHPARAMBU,
KUNNATHOOR MEDU P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
BY ADVS.
N.SATHEESH
PRIYA CAROL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
NO.F 997,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER &
CHIEF MANAGER
COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE SECRETARY
THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
NO.F 997,
COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
VIJINA K.(K/229/2016)
ARUL MURALIDHARAN(K/000853/2018)
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.39793/2023
: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 Palakkad Co-operative
Urban 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 ₹3 lakhs to the petitioner as
House Maintenance Loan in the year 2017. 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. 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 Exts.P2 and P4
notices.
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 2017. 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 Exts.P2 and P4 were 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 06.02.2024 is ₹4,45,000/-
and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹3,50,000/-.
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 of the
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 the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue
amount of ₹3,50,000/- in 12 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
respondentss 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.
(v) 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) 39793/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.SARFEASI-
218(2018-19)MLLT252 MB DATED
01/12/2018 U/S 13(2) OF SARFAESI ACT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 16/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
25/02/2019 FOR REMITTANCE OF ₹
50,000
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
