Kerala High Court
P.K. Bibin vs The Kerala 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. 7224 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
P.K. BIBIN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, POLACKAL HOUSE, NEELOOR PO,
KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686651
BY ADV JOSY ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA BANK
KOLLAPPALLY BRANCH, KOLLAPPALLY,
ANTHIKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.,
PIN - 686651
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
KERALA BANK, KOTTAYAM REGIONAL OFFICE,
P.B. NO. 140, CENTRAL JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001
SRI.ATHUL SHAJI (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.7224 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 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 ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2018. 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 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.7224 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 and P2 notices.
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 installments. 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 2018. The
WP(C) NO.7224 OF 2024
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 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
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 23.02.2024 is ₹6,40,988/- and the
WP(C) NO.7224 OF 2024
overdue amount as on 23.02.2024 is ₹1,62,211/-. Standing
Counsel submitted that sale is proposed to be held on
28.02.2024.
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 ₹20,000/- on
or before 28.02.2024 and the balance
WP(C) NO.7224 OF 2024
overdue amount in 10 consecutive and equal
monthly installments immediately thereafter
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(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.7224 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7224/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
17/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
25/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
