P T Varghese vs The Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5852 Ker

Kerala High Court

P T Varghese vs The Kottayam Co-Operative Urban Bank ... on 23 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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                 WP(C) NO. 6903 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         P T VARGHESE
         AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS,
         VAIRAMANNIL HOUSE, MEENADAM P.O.,
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 516.

         BY ADVS.
              AMJATHA D.A.
              FARHANA K.H.

RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK
         LTD. NO. 421, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
         OFFICER, H.O, P.B NO.46, THIRUNAKKARA,
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.

    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER
         KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
         PUTHUPALLY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 011.

         BY ADV
              SURIN GEORGE IYPE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6903 of 2024
                                :2:



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the Kottayam 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 ₹2.5 lakhs to the petitioner as

Ordinary Loan in the year 2019. 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 as the accident

caused severe financial loss. 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.P1 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. 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 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.P1 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 22.02.2024 is ₹4,42,966/- and the

overdue amount is ₹3,80,466/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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

loan 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹3,80,466/- 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 25.03.2024.

(ii)If the petitioner commits single 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 instalments as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6903/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 24.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.