Beena vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 16447 Ker

Kerala High Court

Beena vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 11 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 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 7118 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BEENA
         AGED 53 YEARS
         W/O GANGADHARAN, KURUMBARUKANDY HOUSE
         KANNADIPOYIL, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673612

         BY ADVS.
         S.MUMTAZ
         ALISHA ASLAM
         AMINA RUBY FAIZAL


RESPONDENT:

         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         RECOVERY SECTION, PB NO. 503, KALLAYI ROAD,
         CHALAPPURAM PO, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673002

         SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.7118 of 2024
                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th 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 ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as

Ordinary Loan in the year 2019. The petitioner states that

though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the

initial repayment period of the financial advance, she 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.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

respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the

loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required her 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.P1 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 entire overdue

amount, 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 11.06.2024 is ₹4,83,685/- and the overdue

amount as on 11.06.2024 is ₹15,384/-.

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 the entire

overdue amount of ₹15,384/- on or before

29.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in

making payment as directed above, the

respondent 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 payment.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payment as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7118/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF POSSESSION DATED 12/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.