Kerala High Court
Sumesh vs The Kerala 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. 11627 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUMESH,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN (LATE),
KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ANICKADU P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
BY ADVS.
AMJATHA D.A.
FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA BANK LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B NO.140,
CENTRAL JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE KERALA BANK LTD,
PALLIKKATHODU BRANCH,
ANICKADU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686503
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
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.11627/2024
: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 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as
Cash Credit facility and ₹3 lakhs as Personal Loan in the
year 2016 and 2019 respectively. 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/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.P1 notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to
clear the outstanding amounts towards the loan/advance, 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/advance was given to the petitioner in the years
2016 and 2019 respectively. The petitioner committed
default in repaying the loan and 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.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 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 ₹16,91,258/-.
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 ₹16,91,258/- in 12
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) 11627/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
NOTICE DATED 26.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
