Kerala High Court
Kochumon A.P 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. 22252 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KOCHUMON A.P
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O PAPPAN ARACKAL HOUSE
MOOLAVATTAM P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 012.
BY ADV
KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
1ST FLOOR, SATELLITE CHAMBERS
NEAR COLLECTORATE K.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected],
PIN - 686 001.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE
NO; 701, SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK 167,
GURU MARGOVINGJI MARG ANDHERI (EAST),
MUMBAI, EMAIL ADDRESS : [email protected],
PIN - 400 093.
BY ADV.
G. HARISHANKAR MENON, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.22252 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 ₹1,73,000/- 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. 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 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. 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 is ₹3,38,674/- and the overdue amount as on
21.06.2024 is ₹1,87,514/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned 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 account 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 his liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of
₹50,000/- within a period of one month and
the balance overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive 10 equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) The respondents shall give back the
possession of the vehicle to the petitioner
on payment of ₹50,000/- as directed above.
(iii) If the petitioner commits single default in
making payments as directed above, the
petitioner shall surrender possession of the
vehicle to the respondents.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner pays the instalments as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22252/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POST SEIZURE NOTICE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH
OF THE VEHICLE.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO:
RBI/2023-24/06
DOR.STR.REC.3/21.04.048/2023-24 DATED
1.04.2023 WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MASTER CIRCULAR - PRUDENTIAL NORMS
ON INCOME RECOGNITION, ASSET
CLASSIFICATION AND PROVISIONING
PERTAINING TO ADVANCE.
