Kerala High Court
Smt.Sreekala Mohan vs Chief Manager/Authorised 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. 852 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SMT.SREEKALA MOHAN
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.MOHAN KUMAR S., SANKARALAYAM,
PAIVALLYBHAGAM, OMALLOOR P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689647
BY ADV THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER,
KERALA GRAMIN BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA GRAMIN BANK,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686501
2 BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK
OMALLOOR BRANCH, OMALLOOR P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689647
BY ADV RASSAL JANARDHANAN A
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.852 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 Gramin Bank to the petitioner and her
husband, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹4 lakhs towards Housing Loan and
₹2 lakhs towards Over Draft facility to the petitioner and her
husband in the year 2012 and 2013 respectively. The
petitioner states that though the petitioner and her husband
made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period
of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment
instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
repayment of loan / advance fell into arrears later. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner
and her husband.
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 notice.
4. The petitioner states that she 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, 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 loan / advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2012
and 2013 respectively. The petitioner and her husband
committed default in repaying the loan / maintaining the
advance.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
her husband and required them to clear the dues. They
deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank
had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner and her
husband invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Ext.P1 was issued
in these circumstances. The petitioner and her husband have
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 remit the
outstanding 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 of Over Draft
facility as on 31.05.2024 is ₹4,55,701/- and the overdue
amount of Housing Loan account as on 19.05.2024 is
₹6,96,633/-.
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) If the petitioner clears the Over Draft
account in which the outstanding amount is
₹4,55,701/- (as on 31.05.2024), along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any, within a period of six weeks and remits
the overdue amount of ₹6,96,633/- (as on
19.05.2024) in the Housing Loan account
along with accruing interest thereon in 10
consecutive monthly instalments immediately
thereafter, coercive proceedings against the
petitioner shall stand deferred.
(ii) Needless to say, the petitioner shall
continue to pay the current EMIs in the
Housing Loan account.
(iii) If the petitioner fails to make any
payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to proceed
against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 852/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE
DATED 17.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
