Kerala High Court
V.G. Aravindakshan vs Authorized Officer & Chief Manager on 6 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19632 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
V.G. ARAVINDAKSHAN
AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT
VELLANIKKARA HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 651.
BY ADVS.
JIBI JACOB
ANJALI MENON
DHILNA TONSON
RESPONDENT:
* AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER [CORRECTED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMEC, KUNNAMKULAM,
MINALUR- ATHANI BRANCH, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 503.
[RESPONDENT ADDRESS IS CORRECTED AS
'AUTHORIZED OFFICER / CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA
BANK, MANNUTHY BRANCH, X/800/13, KUZHIKKALAYIL
EBENEZER SHOPPING COMPLEX, POST OFFICE ROAD,
MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680 651.'
AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2024 IN I.A No.1 OF
2024 IN W.P.(C) No.19632 OF 2024]
BY ADV
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19632 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Canara 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 ₹1,82,000 and ₹91,000/- towards
GECL loans and ₹9 lakhs towards Overdraft facility to the
petitioner in the years 2020, 2021 and 2023. 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. The
repayment of loans fell into arrears later due to Covid-19
pandemic. 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
Exts.P2 and P4.
4. The petitioner states that he 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
respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the loans were
given to the petitioner in the years 2020, 2021 and 2023. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
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 Exts.P2 and P4 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 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 06.06.2024 is ₹12,62,650/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned 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 accounts initially. The default in repayment of the loan
accounts 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 his liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of ₹3
lakhs on or before 30.06.2024 and the balance
outstanding amount in subsequent
consecutive 10 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
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioner in
accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the instalments as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19632/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY
THE MADAKKTHARA PANCHAYATH TO THE
PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT DATED
10.05.2023.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
15-07-2023.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 11.07.2023.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 18-11-2023.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06-05-
2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER.
