Kerala High Court
Bhaskaran.K.P vs The State Bank Of India on 4 January, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 14TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 44260 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN.K.P
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O KUNHIKKANNAN, PROPRIETOR,
BHASKARA JEWELLERY, 1/863, PUTHOOR ROAD,
NEAR PANOOR JUNCTION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670692
BY ADVS.
U.P.BALAKRISHNAN
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
C.H.ABDUL RASAC
RESPONDENT
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
RETAIL ASSETS SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
CITY CREDIT CENTER,
M.G.ROAD, KANNUR,
REP.BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 670001
SRI.M.R.ANISON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the State 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 ₹9 lakhs towards Cash Credit in the
year 2018 and ₹2,07,130 and ₹90,000/- towards Term Loans
in the year 2021 to the petitioner. 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 some
financial difficulties. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
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.P2 notice.
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
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
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2018 and 2021.
The 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 Ext.P2 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 overdue amount
immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted
to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 04.01.2024 is ₹13,87,027/- and the
overdue amount as on 04.01.2024 is ₹2,82,734/-.
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:
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
(i) The petitioner shall remit ₹85,000/- on
or before 31.01.2024 and the balance
overdue amount in five 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.
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
(v) The petitioner may approach the
respondent for regularisation of loan account
after clearing the overdues.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) NO.44260 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44260/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
06.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 11.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
