Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan. K vs The Authorized Officer, The Ottapalam ... 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. 12574 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MURALEEDHARAN K.,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O MR. KRISHNAN @ K. KRISHNAN MASTER ,
KARUVARATHODI HOUSE, PANAYUR KOTTA,
PANAYUR VILLAGE, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522
BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE OTTAPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD ,
NO.F.1647
HEAD OFFICE, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE OTTAPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD ,
NO.F.1647, LAKKIDI BRANCH, OTTAPALM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
BY ADVS.
VINOD MADHAVAN
M.V.BOSE(K/8/1967)
DEVI P.(K/643/2013)
SANIYA C.V.(K/749/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12574/2024
: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 Ottapalam Co-operative
Urban 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 ₹8 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash
Credit facility in the year 2018. The petitioner states that
though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could
not pay the instalments promptly later due to Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of advance 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.
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.P2 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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2018.
The petitioner committed default in maintaining the
advance.
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.P2 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 outstanding 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 28.06.2024 is ₹7,35,000/-.
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 account initially. The default in repayment of the
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 the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹7,35,000/- in eight
consecutive and equal monthly
installments along with accruing interest
and other Bank charges, if any. First of
such installments shall be paid on or
before 29.07.2024.
(ii) 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.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12574/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit - P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING
PAYMENT OF RS. ONE LAKH, ISSUED BY
THE 2"D RESPONDENT BANK, TO THE
PETITIONER DATED L3.03.24,
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C. NO.
4/24, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CJM,
PALAKKAD DATED NIL.
