Lucy Luca vs Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 16451 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16451 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Lucy Luca vs Authorised Officer 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. 20896 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         LUCY LUCA
         AGED 62 YEARS
         W/O LUCA JOSEPH, KARUKACHERIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA,
         KATTAPPANA P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685508

         BY ADV JESTIN MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1    AUTHORISED OFFICER
         CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA,RACC,
         KATTAPPANA, KATTAPPANA PO,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685508
    2    STATE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, KATTAPPANA BRANCH,
         KATTAPPANA PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685508

         SRI.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR

     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.20896 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 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 ₹27 lakhs towards Cash Credit

facility and more than ₹2 lakhs towards GECL Loan to the

petitioner in the years 2010 and 2020 respectively. 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/advance 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

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 were given to the petitioner in the years

2010 and 2020 respectively. The petitioner committed default

in repaying the loan / maintaining the advance.

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 Exts.P1 and P2 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 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 due to the Bank from

the petitioner as on 11.06.2024 is ₹28,20,766/-.

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

outstanding amount of ₹28,20,766/- in eight

consecutive and equal monthly instalments

along with administrative charges, if any.

First of such instalments shall be paid on or

before 11.07.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT