Fathima Ali vs The Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 36 Ker

Kerala High Court

Fathima Ali vs The Authorised Officer on 3 January, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 44156 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         FATHIMA ALI
         AGED 56 YEARS
         W/O. LATE ALI, RESIDING AT CHUNDAIL HOUSE,
         KALLOOR DESOM, KALLOOR VILLAGE,
         MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680317

         BY ADVS.
              T.MADHU
              C.R.SARADAMANI
              RENJISH S. MENON
              VRINDA T.S.
              AISWARYA JAYAPAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         KERALA BANK, SAHAKARANA SATHABDHI MANDIRAM,
         TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THIRUVAMPADY P.O.,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680022
    2    THE MANAGER
         KERALA BANK, PUDUKAD BRANCH, PUDUKAD,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680301

         SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.44156 of 2023


                              2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 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 ₹7,00,000/- and ₹1,75,000/- to the

petitioner as Mortgage Loan in the year 2017 and 2022

respectively. 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

instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The

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

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit

the petitioner 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 and P2 notices.

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

clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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

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

the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2017 and

2022 respectively. The petitioner committed default in

repaying the loans.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required her 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 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 03.01.2024 is ₹8,39,752/- and the

overdue amount as on 03.01.2024 is ₹2,92,232/-.

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

loans 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 an amount of

₹60,000/- within a period of one month from

today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

overdue amount in subsequent consecutive

nine equal monthly instalments thereafter,

along with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits any default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(v) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44156/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P2         THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
                   7/3/2023        BEARING       REFERENCE

NO.80016447003, 80010680599/PKD/2022- 2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.