Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar M vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Represented By Its ... 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. 22042 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ANIL KUMAR M
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA KURUP NARAYANATH, PERUMPARAMBA,
IRITTIYA PO, PAYAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670703
2 BHAVYA GANGADHAR
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O ANIL KUMAR M,
SIVAPRAABHA,KUMMANAM,ELAMBRA,KEEZHULLUR,
EDAYANNUR,KANNUR, PIN - 670595
BY ADV ASWIN T SURESH
RESPONDENT:
DHANALAXMI BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
BIG BAZAR BRANCH,M KCOMPLEX,
BOC ROAD,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, STANDING COUNSEL
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.22042 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Dhanalakshmi Bank to the petitioners, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The petitioners availed Housing Loan, Machinery
Loan and Business Loan from the respondent-Bank. 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 financial stringency. 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 Ext.P1 notice.
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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2021. 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 Ext.P1 notice was 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 make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount
immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted
to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the total outstanding amount as on 21.06.2024
is ₹69,03,834/- and the overdue amount as on 21.06.2024 is
₹11,47,862/-.
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 of the loan
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 amount of ₹11,47,862/- in ten
consecutive and equal monthly instalments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. First of such instalment shall
be paid on or before 22.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the 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
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22042/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE AUCTION NOTICE
DATED 13.05.2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH
AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1.
