Suresh Kumar V V vs Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 14750 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14750 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Suresh Kumar V V vs Authorized Officer on 4 June, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 20057 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SURESH KUMAR V V
         AGED 43 YEARS
         S/O VELAYUDHAN, VETTATH PULLADATH HOUSE,
         NAMBAZHIKKAD P O MATTOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 680602

         BY ADV P.R.JAYASANKAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK,
         KOONAMMUCHI BRANCH, MEJO COMPLEX,
         KOONAMMOCHI, TRISSUR, PIN - 680504
    2    THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK
         KOONAMMUCHI BRANCH, MEJO COMPLEX,
         KOONAMMOCHI, TRISSUR, PIN - 680504
         REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER
    3    THE BRANCH MANAGER
         THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK,
         KOONAMMUCHI BRANCH, MEJO COMPLEX,
         KOONAMMOCHI, TRISSUR, PIN - 680504

         BY ADV
         SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.20057 of 2024
                               2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of June, 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

Simple Loan in the year 2016. 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 instalments promptly later due to financial

stringency. 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.P3 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 instalments. 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 2016. 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.P3 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 remit the overdue amount

in instalments, 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 04.06.2024 is ₹29,80,322/- and the overdue

amount as on 04.06.2024 is ₹17,48,165/-.

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 ₹5 lakhs

within a period of one month from today and

the balance overdue amount in 10

consecutive and equal monthly instalments

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

respondents 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.

(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to

approach the Bank for availing One Time

Settlement, without violating the payment

schedule as directed above, if the Scheme is

available.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28-2-2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6-3-2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 2-5-2024