Madhu M. S vs The Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5880 Ker

Kerala High Court

Madhu M. S vs The 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. 6140 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         MADHU M.S.,
         AGED 49 YEARS,
         S/O SELVANOS,
         RESIDING AT PACHAKKADU,
         IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695564

         BY ADVS.
         S.JUSTUS
         SOJAN M.J.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         EAST FORT, FORT P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         ARUVIKKARA BRANCH,
         ARUVIKKARA P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695564

         BY ADV. THOMAS ABRAHAM

     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.6140/2024
                                :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 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 ₹7 lakhs to the petitioner as Over

Draft facility 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 due to

Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance 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 outstanding 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 outstanding amounts towards the advance, 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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2019.

The petitioner committed default in repaying the advance.

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 notice 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 outstanding 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 ₹8,60,450/-.

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 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

outstanding amount of ₹8,60,450/- 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 25.03.2024.

(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 pays the amount as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6140/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06.11.2023.