Kerala High Court
Mrs.Divya Saiju vs Axis 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. 23075 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MRS.DIVYA SAIJU
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O SAIJU.K.K, KARUTHEDATHU HOUSE, TV
PURAM.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.,
PIN - 686606.
BY ADVS.
K.A.MANZOOR ALI
JACOB GEORGE (PARAVUR)
FAYIZA PARVEEN ZAHEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 AXIS BANK LTD.
RAC, 5TH FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PIN - 682035.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
AXIS BANK LTD.,RAC,5TH FLOOR, CHICAGO PLAZA,
RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682035.
BY ADVS.
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)
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.23075 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 - Axis 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 ₹15,14,902/- to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2017. The petitioner states that
though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, she 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.23075 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 Exts.P1 and P2
notices.
4. The petitioner states that she 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, she 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 2017. The
petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required her to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately
WP(C) NO.23075 OF 2024
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 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 ₹ 19,21,145/-.
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.23075 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 an amount of ₹3
lakhs within a period of three weeks from
today and the balance outstanding amount
in subsequent consecutive 12 equal monthly
instalments thereafter, along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
WP(C) NO.23075 OF 2024
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) 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.23075 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23075/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
23.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO
THE PETITIONER.
