Kerala High Court
Jubilet Malar vs Union Bank Of India Medical College ... 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. 18299 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JUBILET MALAR
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O JOSHI JAMES
JUAN VILLA, VIRALI, MARAYAMUTTOM PO,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695124.
2 JOSHI JAMES
AGED 38 YEARS
JUAN VILLA, VIRALI, MARAYAMUTTOM PO,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695124.
BY ADV T.B.MINI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA MEDICAL COLLEGE
KUMRAPURAM BRANCH
PONNAN MANDIRAM, KUMARAPURAM,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
KERALA PIN:695011,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER,
2 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA
MEDICAL COLLEGE KUMRAPURAM BRANCH
PONNAN MANDIRAM, KUMARAPURAM,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695011.
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ
SIVA SURESH
ATHIRA VIJAYAN
B.SREEDEVI
W.P.(C)No.18299 of 2024
:2:
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.18299 of 2024
:3:
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 Union Bank of India to the petitioners, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹8.10 lakhs to the petitioners as
Housing Loan in the year 2013. 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
Covid-19 pandemic. 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 Exts.P2 and P3
notices.
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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2013. 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 Exts.P2 and P3 notices were issued in
these circumstances. 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 remit the balance
overdue amount in instalments, 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 is ₹6,92,608/- and the overdue
amount as on 22.05.2024 is ₹66,500/-.
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 the overdue
amount of ₹66,500/- in ten equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioners
in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) 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) 18299/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT
SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF LOAN INSTALMENTS
BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
BANK TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 1-2-2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE
PAYMENT OF RS. 1,00,000/- TO THE
RESPONDENT BANK ON 9-5-2024
