Balamurali Krishnan vs The Fderal Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 17042 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17042 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Balamurali Krishnan vs The Fderal Bank Ltd 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. 22134 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BALAMURALI KRISHNAN
         AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O.KARUNAKARA KAIMAL, KADAL BHAVAN,
         VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683556

         BY ADVS.
         N.ASHOK KUMAR
         ARJUN S.KURUPP
         JEEMON P.ABRAHAM
         MARIAMMA GEORGE MARANGOLY


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE FDERAL BANK LTD.
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGR,
         PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT
         FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION,
         FEDERAL TOWRS, GROUND FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

         SRI.P. PAULOCHAN ANTONY, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.06.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.22134 of 2024
                                2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Federal Bank Limited 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 ₹60 lakhs to the petitioner as

Property Power Loan in the year 2015. 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 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 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 instalments. 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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately

omitted to do so. The petitioner's loan account was classified

as NPA in January, 2024. 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 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 20.06.2024 is ₹36,70,167/- and the

overdue amount as on 20.06.2024 is ₹1,50,000/-.

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 ₹50,000/- on

or before 29.06.2024 and the balance

overdue amount in four consecutive and

equal monthly instalments thereafter along

with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any.

(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.