Kerala High Court
Bindu I.C vs Authorised Officer 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. 7181 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BINDU I.C
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O., BALAKRISHNAN, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE,
THRITHALLOOR WEST P.O, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680619
BY ADVS.
K.I.SAGEER
MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENT:
AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD
VADANAPALLY BRANCH, VADANAPALLY P.O
THRISSUR, PIN - 680614
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN(SC) R1 & R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.7181 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 Kerala State 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 ₹3.5 lakhs towards Housing Loan,
₹87,500/- towards Covid Suraksha Loan and ₹3.5 lakhs
towards Simple Loan to the petitioner in the years 2009, 2022
and 2017 respectively. 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 installments promptly later due to financial
constraints. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It
WP(C) NO.7181 OF 2024
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
installments, 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
to P3 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 installments. If the
respondent 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 respondent, it is submitted that the loan was
WP(C) NO.7181 OF 2024
given to the petitioner in the years 2009, 2022 and 2017. 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 to P3 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 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 23.02.2024 is ₹6,45,756/- and the overdue amount as on
WP(C) NO.7181 OF 2024
23.02.2024 is ₹2,64,150/-.
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 loan
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 ₹2,64,150/- in 10 consecutive and
equal monthly instalments along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of
WP(C) NO.7181 OF 2024
such instalments shall be paid on or before
25.03.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making
payments as directed above, the respondent
will be at liberty to continue with the 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 makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) NO.7181 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7181/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 19.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR LOAN NO.-151460322000725
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 19.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR LOAN NO.-151460480000513
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 19.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR LOAN NO.-151460356002987
