Kerala High Court
Sujeesh .M.T vs The Branch Manager Bank Of Baroda on 16 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 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUJEESH .M.T
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY MANALIL THAZHA HOUSE,
I VIYYUR VILLAGE KOLLAM PO KEEZHARIYUR
QUILANDY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA
PIN - 673307
BY ADVS.
N.D.ARUN DAS
VICTOR ANTONY NOONE
M.C.CHITHRAKALA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA
QUILANDY BRANCH AMBADI COMPLEX, N.H ROAD
QUILANDY KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFEASI ACT
BANK OF BARODA
QUILANDY BRANCH AMBADI COMPLEX ,NH.H ROAD
QUILANDY KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305
BY SRI.BIPIN VIJAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..2..
N.NAGARESH, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6095 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Baroda 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 ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner as
personal Loan. 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. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..3..
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.P3 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.
The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..4..
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.P3 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 is ₹22,42,751/- and the overdue amount as on
16/02/2024 is ₹7,35,000/-.
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..5..
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 an amount of
₹3,00,000/- within a period of one month from
today.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..6..
overdue amount in subsequent consecutive 8
equal monthly instalments thereafter, along
with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH, JUDGE
AS
WP(C) NO. 6095 OF 2024
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6095/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT - P1 THE DEMAND NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
5/02/2022.
EXHIBIT -P2 THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENTTO THE PETITIONER DATED
21/04/2022.
EXHIBIT -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE
PETITIONER IN CMP NO:671/2023 (CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AT
KOZHIKODE) DATED 8/2/2024.
EXHIBIT -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 6/02/2024.
