Kerala High Court
Suni.K.K vs State Bank Of India 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. 17924 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUNI.K.K.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O VIDYASAGARAN, MAKAYIRAM,
VADAKKEKKARA EAST P.O., PALLIPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690512
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BEACH ROAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, BEACH ROAD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
3 BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALLIPPAD BRANCH,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690512
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA(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.17924 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 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 petitioner along with her husband availed
Housing Loan and Suraksha Loan from the respondent-Bank
in the year 2015. 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 installments promptly later due to her illness of
the husband and daughter. The repayment of loan fell into
arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioner.
WP(C) No.17924 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.P1 notice.
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 installments. 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
WP(C) No.17924 Of 2024
the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
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 Ext.P1 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 total outstanding 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 towards Housing Loan
WP(C) No.17924 Of 2024
as on 20.06.2024 is ₹3,85,533/- and the outstanding amount
towards Suraksha Loan is ₹26,864/-.
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 total
outstanding amount of ₹4,12,397/-
(₹3,85,533/- + ₹26,864/-) in six consecutive
WP(C) No.17924 Of 2024
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. First of such installments shall be paid
on or before 22.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits 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
hmh
WP(C) No.17924 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17924/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
07.05.2024
