Santhosh Kumar. S vs The Karur Vysya Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 5885 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5885 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Santhosh Kumar. S vs The Karur Vysya 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. 6399 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
    1    SANTHOSH KUMAR S.,
         AGED 51 YEARS,
         S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR,
         'SHAIVAS', NO.437/32-263,
         KALAPPATU LANE, EDAPPALLY TOLL,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
    2    SHIJA V.S.,
         AGED 48 YEARS,
         W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR. S,
         'SHAIVAS', NO.437/32-263, KALAPPATU
         LANE,EDAPPALLY TOLL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

         BY ADVS.
         D.KISHORE
         MEERA GOPINATH
         R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KARUR VYSYA BANK,
         ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
         K.C. CENTRE, OPP. NORTH POLICE STATION,
         KACHERIPADY, CHITTOOR ROAD,
         ERNAKULAM-682 018
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
    2    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KARUR VYSYA BANK,
         ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH,
         1498-C, KVB TOWERS,
         3RD FLOOR, AVINASHI ROAD, PEELAMEDU,
         COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641004
    3    THE MANAGER,
         KARUR VYSYA BANK, EDAPPALLY BRANCH,
         EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024

         BY ADV P.S.GEORGE
     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.6399/2024
                               :2:




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024

The petitioners have approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the Karur Vysya Bank to the

petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹29 lakhs to the petitioners as

Housing Loan in the year 2011. The petitioners state that

though the petitioners made remittances promptly during

the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they

could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to

permit the petitioners 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 petitioners state that they are 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 petitioners, they 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

petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted

that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2011.

The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners

and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners

deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the

Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the

petitioners 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 petitioners have

not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive

proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing

Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the

Bank from the petitioners as on 15.02.2024 is

₹26,00,544.89 and the overdue amount as on 15.02.2024 is

₹3,78,318/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and

the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the

petitioners have been making the repayment and

maintaining the loan account initially. The default in

maintenance of the account occurred lately due to reasons

beyond the control of the petitioners. The petitioners have

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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioners shall remit an amount

of ₹75,000/- on or before 27.02.2024.

(ii) The petitioners shall remit the

balance overdue amount in subsequent

consecutive eight equal monthly

instalments thereafter, along with accruing

interest and other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioners commit default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioners in accordance with law.