Kerala High Court
Pradeep Prabhakaran vs Indusind Bank Limited on 21 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 21985 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP PRABHAKARAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O PRABAKARAN, (MANAGING DIRECTOR HOLY JOBS)
RESIDING AT RENUKA SADHANAM, KAVALPADU P.O,
PALAKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678002
BY ADV K.S.DHANESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
VIII-1251,2ND FLOOR NH BYEPASS JUNCTION
CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER CUM AUTHORIZED
OFFICER, PIN - 678007
BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.21985 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the IndusInd 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 ₹4,80,645/- to the petitioner as
Vehicle Loan in the year 2020. 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.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 instalments. If the
respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the
loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2020. 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 the year 2023. The Bank took possession of the
vehicle on 11.06.2024. 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.P2 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 remit the overdue amount
in instalments, 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 21.06.2024 is ₹2,84,954/- and the overdue
amount as on 21.06.2024 is ₹1,39,051/-.
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 ₹1,39,051/- in three consecutive
and equal monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. First of such instalments shall be paid
on or before 22.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.
(v) The respondent is directed to release
the vehicle to the petitioner when the
petitioner remits the entire overdue amount.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21985/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.05.2024 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
DATED11.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN M.C. NO. 226/2024 ON
THE FILE OF HONORABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD
