Kerala High Court
Rahul Reghunath vs Indian Overseas Bank (Iob) on 20 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 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 21714 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RAHUL REGHUNATH
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O REGHUNATH P.K.,
PANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANAPRAMBAL NORTH PO,
THALAVADY. ALAPPUZHA - 689572.
2 RADHAMANI K.R
AGED 68 YEARS, W/O REGHUNATH P.K.,
PANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANAPRAMBAL NORTH PO,
THALAVADY. ALAPPUZHA PIN - 689572.
BY ADVS.
VARUGHESE CHERIAN
S.S.JAYAKALA
M.A.AUGUSTINE
A.R.NIMOD
ANLIT THERESE SHAJI
MITHUL T ANTO
RESPONDENT:
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK (IOB)
EDATHUA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
& CHIEF MANAGER, PIN - 688521.
BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL SHANKER, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.21714 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Indian Overseas Bank to the petitioners, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The petitioners along with the wife of the 1 st
petitioner had availed a Housing Loan from the respondent-
Bank for an amount of ₹12 lakhs in the year 2018. 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 instalments
promptly later due to serious illness of the father of the 1 st
petitioner. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened
due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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.P5 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 instalments. If
the respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2018. The
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.P5 notice was issued in these
circumstances. The loan account is declared as NPA in the
2022. 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 18.06.2024 is ₹14,38,282/- and the
overdue amount is ₹3,12,678/-.
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 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 an amount of
₹50,000/- on or before 29.06.2024.
(ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance
overdue amount in subsequent consecutive
ten equal monthly instalments thereafter,
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioners
in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21714/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN
RESPECT OF THE TREATMENT AT PUSHPAGIRI
MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRIVALLA DATED 12-
04-2019
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
FROM AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE, ERNAKULAM PRINTED DATE 11-06-
Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PETITION FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CJM
COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN MC NO. 246/2024
DATED 1-03-2024
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06/04/2024 PASSED BY THE CJM COURT IN
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
24/05/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN MC NO. 246/2024
