Bose. T.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 19003 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19003 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Bose. T.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank 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. 10065 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BOSE. T.G.,
         AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN (LATE),
         THADATHIL HOUSE,VALUPARA,
         ANGAMOOZHY.P.O.,SEETHATHODU,
         PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689662.

         BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA


RESPONDENTS:

   1     KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.104,
         OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL,
         ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.

   2     AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
         RANNI AREA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PB
         NO.104,OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL,
         ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688011.

         BY ADV K.AMMINIKUTTY


     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.10065 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 Kerala State Co-operative 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 ₹9 lakhs to the petitioner as

Consumption Loan in the year 2017. 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 loan fell into arrears. 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.P1 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 2017. 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 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.P1 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 remit the balance overdue

amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted

to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel

submitted that the overdue amount due to the Bank from the

petitioner as on 28.05.2024 is ₹5,03,866/-.

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 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 overdue

amount of ₹5,03,866/- 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 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) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10065/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE NOTICE AS PER S.13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 01.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,20,849/-.