Kerala High Court
Omana B vs The Coastal Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 39752 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
OMANA B
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE MANIKANDAN,
PADANNAYIL PADINJATTATHIL,
SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691581.
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COASTAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO. 3036, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEAD OFFICE : NEAR CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
THE COASTAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO. 3036 HEAD OFFICE : NEAR CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
BY ADVS.
SREEJITH S
ANESH PAUL
AKHIL K.MADHAV
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.39752 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Coastal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited 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 ₹30 lakhs to the petitioner as
Ordinary Loan in the year 2016. 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 due to
huge treatment expenses of her husband and Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. 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.P1 and P6
notices.
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 are 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 2016. 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 Exts.P1 and P6 notices 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 outstanding
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 20.02.2024 is ₹55,35,175/-.
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
outstanding amount of ₹55,35,175/- in 10
equal and consecutive monthly instalments
along with accruing interest and other
Bank charges, if any. The first instalment
shall be paid on or before 20.03.2024.
(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) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if
any, against the petitioner shall stand
deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39752/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.6.2023
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2023
Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE STATE WOMEN COMMISSION DATED
13.6.2023
Exhibit-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE STATE WOMEN COMMISSION TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 7.7.2023
Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
CARDIOLOGIST ATTACHED TO THE DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, KOLLAM DATED 1.8.2023
Exhibit-P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED
16.9.2023
Exhibit-P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
6.2.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER
