Kerala High Court
Mary Geetha vs Kerala Cooperative 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. 6837 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MARY GEETHA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ANTONY M.J., PRATHEEKSHA NAGAR,
KOCHUPALLY ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 682005
BY ADVS.
AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
SAJAN MANNALI
V.N.SHASHIKALA
SANTHI K.PAI
M.P.JAYAKUMAR
HARITHA K.T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA COOPERATIVE BANK
HEAD OFFICE, COBANK TOWERS,
PALAYAM AIRPORT RD,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 695033
2 KERALA COOPERATIVE BANK
CC-11/1163,ANEARIKKATTU BUILDINGS,
THOPPUMPADY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 682005
SRI.N.RAGHURAJAN-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.6837 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 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as E-Cap
Loan in the year 2018. 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 Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.6837 OF 2024
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 & P2 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
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
WP(C) NO.6837 OF 2024
the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2018. 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. The petitioner's loan account was declared
as NPA in the year 2022. 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 P2 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
WP(C) NO.6837 OF 2024
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 21.02.2024 is ₹24,87,992/- and the
overdue amount as on 21.02.2024 is ₹8,07,395/-.
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 ₹2.5 lakhs on
or before 15.03.2024 and the balance
WP(C) NO.6837 OF 2024
overdue amount in 12 consecutive and equal
monthly installments immediately thereafter
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.6837 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6837/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
22/03/2023 EXHIBITED AT THE
PETITIONER'S HOUSE
Exhibit P2 FURTHER A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
NOTICE EXHIBITED AT THE PETITIONER'S
RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DATED 22/03/2023
