Kerala High Court
Raishad K.T vs Malappuram District Cooperative Bank ... 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. 15936 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RAISHAD K.T.,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL SATHAR K.T.,
KANNAMTHODI THEKKEKALATHIL,VETTATHUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679326
2 SHAFNA MOL @ SHAHANA,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. RAISHAD K.T., KANNAMTHODI
THEKKEKALATHIL,VETTATHUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679326
BY ADVS.
MANU TOM
BALAMURALI K.P.
HARIPRIYA.M
RENIL IQUBAL K.
AMAL C. PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,
PB NO.8, MANJERI ROAD,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 676505
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
PB NO.8, MANJERI ROAD, UPHILL,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA (STANDING COUNSEL)
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.15936 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Limited
to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹8 lakhs to the 1st petitioner as
Mortgage Loan in the year 2021. The 2nd petitioner is stood as
guarantor in the loan. The petitioners state that though the
petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial
repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay
the repayment installments promptly later. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioners.
WP(C) No.15936 Of 2024
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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 petitioners state that they are 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 respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2021. The
WP(C) No.15936 Of 2024
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other
go than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners as on 25.04.2024 is ₹11,10,989/- and the
WP(C) No.15936 Of 2024
overdue amount as on 25.04.2024 is ₹3,67,273/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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
petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue
amount of ₹3,67,273/- in eight consecutive
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
WP(C) No.15936 Of 2024
any. First of such instalments shall be paid
on or before 04.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.15936 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15936/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13-
11-2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT.
ExhibitP2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28-
03-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI
ACT.
