Kerala High Court
Chandrahasa. K vs The Canara Bank on 27 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 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22960 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHANDRAHASA. K
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SUBBA BELCHAPPADA,
SHRI MUTHAPPAN NIVASA, SHANTIMULE,
KUBANOOR, PO BEKUR, KASARAGOD - 671322.
BY ADVS.
DEEPAK RAJ
GOUTHAMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CANARA BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
T VYAPARI BHAVAN, MP VIII 654 A, NH-17,
MAIN ROAD, MANJESWARAM KASARAGOD - 670301.
2 THE CANARA BANK
VYAPARI BHAVAN, MP VIII 654 A, NH-17,
MAIN ROAD, MANJESWARAM KASARAGOD - 670301.
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.22960 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Canara Bank 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 ₹14 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2016 and a Mudra Loan of
₹2.5 lakhs in the year 2017. The petitioner states that though
the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial
repayment period of the financial advances, he could not pay
the instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The
repayment of loans fell into arrears. 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.P4 notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to
clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 loans
were given to the petitioner in the years 2016 and 2017. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.
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.P4 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 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 27.06.2024 is ₹14,38,208/- and the
overdue amount is ₹1,81,545/-.
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 accounts initially. The default in repayment 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 an amount of
₹50,000/- on or before 02.07.2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
overdue amount in subsequent consecutive
eight equal monthly instalments thereafter,
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioner in
accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22960/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASSBOOK NO:
3518619000022 OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASS BOOK NO.
3518/766/04 OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 21.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
13.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN CMP NO. 617/2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, KASARAGOD
