Sajesh Kunhi Purayil vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd [ ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 18717 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18717 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sajesh Kunhi Purayil vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd [ ... on 28 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 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 22906 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SAJESH KUNHI PURAYIL
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O HARIDASAN, SATHI NIVAS, KODIYERI, PARAL
         P.O, PARAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670671.
         BY ADV KAVERY S THAMPI

RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
         [ KERALA BANK]
         KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE ,PB NO: 35, KANNUR
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 670001.
    2    AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD [ KERALA
         BANK] KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE ,PB NO: 35,
         KANNUR, PIN - 670001.
         BY ADV.
         M. SASINDREN FOR R1 AND R2

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024
                               :2:


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the 1st respondent - Kerala State

Co-operative Bank Ltd [Kerala 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 ₹8 lakhs to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2019. 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 WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024

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 Exts.P1 and P2

notices.

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 2019. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024

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 Exts.P1 and P2 were 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 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 ₹14,31,494/- and the overdue amount as on

28.06.2024 is ₹9,06,808/-.

WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024

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 her liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹9,06,808/- in 12 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024

on or before 29.07.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.

(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(iv) If the petitioner pays the instalments as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

                                    N. NAGARESH
       pvv                              JUDGE
 WP(C) NO.22906 OF 2024





              APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22906/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1        A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER

SECTION 13(4) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.08.2023.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 4.06.2024 BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMP NO: