V.K. Valsan vs Kerala Gramin Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 18513 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18513 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

V.K. Valsan vs Kerala Gramin 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. 22947 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

   1     V.K. VALSAN
         AGED 50 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN,
         MUKKATH HOUSE MANATHAVADY, PAYODE,
         NALLURNAD P.O, WAYANAD PIN - 670645.

   2     RUDHIN
         AGED 26 YEARS, S/O V.K. VALSAN,
         MUKKATH HOUSE MANATHAVADY, PAYODE,
         NALLURNAD P.O, WAYANAD - 670645.

         BY ADVS.
         SALMAN FARIS
         VICTOR ANTONY NOONE
         EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.
         ASWIN K.R.

RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA GRAMIN BANK
         REPRESNTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
         KELLUR BRANCH, KELLUR P.O, MANATHAVADY,
         WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645.

    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
         AMMU'S COMPLEX, KALPETTA,
         WAYANAD, PIN - 673121.

         BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

     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.22947 of 2024
                             :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Kerala Gramin Bank to the petitioners, invoking

the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹10 lakhs to the petitioners as

Housing Loan in the year 2019. The petitioners state that

though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the

initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could

not pay the instalments promptly later due to financial

difficulties. 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 invoking

Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002.

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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that

the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2019. 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 remit the balance

overdue amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be

granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing

Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the

Bank from the petitioners as on 27.06.2024 is ₹15,34,711/-

and the overdue amount is ₹2,03,419/-.

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 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 of ₹2,03,419/- in ten equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. The first instalment shall be paid on or

before 29.07.2024.

(ii) If the petitioners commit default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

coercive proceedings against the petitioners

in accordance with law.