Kerala High Court
Murukan. G vs Indusind Bank Limited 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. 22726 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MURUKAN. G.,AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, 730/68/2026, MURUKA NIVAS,
MUDIPURA NADA, PACHALLOOR, NEAR CHUDUKADU DEVI
TEMPLE, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695027.
BY ADVS.
GODWIN JOSEPH
VINOD.R
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 2401, GENERAL
THIMMAYYA ROAD, CANTONMENT, PUNE,
PIN - 411001.
2 BRANCH MANAGER
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED, TRIVANDRUM ELT BRANCH,
TC 9/1014(9), FIRST FLOOR, SHIVASHAKTI TOWERS,
SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010.
BY ADV.
G.HARIHARAN 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.22726 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 - IndusInd
Bank Ltd. 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 ₹ 6,61,145/- to the petitioner as
Vehicle 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
monthly instalments, the Bank authorities were not yielding.
WP(C) NO.22726 OF 2024
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.P3 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 2019. 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
WP(C) NO.22726 OF 2024
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.P3 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 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 ₹1,62,436/- and the overdue amount as on
25.06.2024 is ₹1,45,260/-.
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
WP(C) NO.22726 OF 2024
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 ₹1,45,260/- in five equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. First of such instalments shall be paid
on or before 29.07.2024.
(ii) The respondents shall give back the
possession of the vehicle to the petitioner,
on payment of 50% of the overdue amount.
WP(C) NO.22726 OF 2024
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.22726 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22726/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE (RC) BOOK OF THE
PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO.
REG. NO. KL-01-CJ-7590.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06.05.2024 IN M.C. NO. 366/2024 OF THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
03.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED
OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
