Kerala High Court
Baskaran Pillai Unnikrishnan vs State Bank Of India 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. 19922 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BASKARAN PILLAI UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI,
FLAT NO-10D, BLOCK -04,
CLEARWAY ASTRUM,
KANAVALLIL LINE,
SOUTH CHITTOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
BY ADVS.
FAIZEL K.
SAIPOOJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
EDAPPALLY BRANCH,
MAJOORAN ESTATE,
STATION KAVALA, CHERANALLLUR RD,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN - 682024
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
7TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,
PALARIVATTOM P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
BY ADV.SMT.S.LAKSHMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19922/2024
: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 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 ₹63 lakhs to the petitioner as
Home Loan in the year 2020. 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
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 outstanding 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 outstanding 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 2020. 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. The petitioner's loan account was
declared as NPA in the year 2024. 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 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 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 04.06.2024 is ₹63,22,781/-.
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
account 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 the
outstanding amount of ₹63,22,781/- in 10
consecutive and equal monthly
installments along with accruing interest
and other Bank charges, if any. First of
such installments shall be paid on or
before 04.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19922/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION
LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
02.05.2023
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT DATED
30.05.2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
DATED 11.04.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER
FROM A COMPANY UNION PROPERTIES TO
PETITIONER DATED 21.05.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED11-03-2024.
