Shinod N vs Union Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 6054 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6054 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Shinod N vs Union Bank Of India 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. 6708 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              SHINOD N
              AGED 48 YEARS
              S/O SREEDHARAN P.K , VARAPRATH HOUSE ,
              P.O.PATHAYAKUNNU
              THALASSERY TALUK
              KANNUR, PIN - 670691

              BY ADVS.
              M.R.REENA
              P.S.SUJETH


RESPONDENT:

              UNION BANK OF INDIA
              THALASSERY BR KANNUR DT. REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
              REGIONAL OFFICE KSHB COMPLEX VIKAS NAGAR ,
              CHOKKORATHUKULAM,
              KOZIKODE, PIN - 673006

              BY ADVS.
              ASP.KURUP
              SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
              C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
              SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
              RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)


     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.6708 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 Union Bank of India 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 ₹8.28 lakhs to the petitioner as

Cash Credit facility in the year 2010. 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

Flood and Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance

fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the

control of the petitioner.

WP(C) NO.6708 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 Ext.P1 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the advance, 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, 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 respondent, it is submitted that the

advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2010. The WP(C) NO.6708 OF 2024

petitioner committed default in maintaining 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 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 ₹10,66,200/-. Standing Counsel WP(C) NO.6708 OF 2024

submitted that the 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 advance initially. The default in repayment of the advance

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 ₹1.5 lakhs on

or before 27.02.2024 and the balance

outstanding amount in 10 consecutive and

equal monthly installments immediately WP(C) NO.6708 OF 2024

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) 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.6708 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6708/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 16- 01-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02-02-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER