Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs Union Bank Of India on 12 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20623 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJESH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.RAJU, VALIYAPARAMBIL, AZHEEKKAL P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690547
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 691001
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPAD BRANCH,
SSV KARAYOGAM BUILDING, ALAPPAD,
CHERIAZHEEKKAL P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM -, PIN - 690573
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Union 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 ₹6.5 lakhs towards Housing Loan in
the year 2015 and ₹2.98 lakhs towards Covid Loan in the
year 2020 to the petitioner. 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 installments promptly later as the petitioner has
lost his eye sight during the last two years. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioner.
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner 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 petitioner states that he 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 installments. If the
respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2015 and
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
2020. 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 Ext.P2 notice 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 make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue 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 12.06.2024 is ₹6,01,600/- and the
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
overdue amount as on 12.06.2024 is ₹1,24,000/-.
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 overdue
amount of ₹1,24,000/- in ten consecutive and
equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
any. First of such installments shall be paid
on or before 12.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments 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 payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.20623 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20623/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT DATED
4.10.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
FROM CERTIFICATE DATED CHITHANYA EYE
HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 8 OF THE
SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,
2002 DATED 20.5.2024 ALONG WITH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
