Kerala High Court
Sanad P vs The Kerala Bank on 27 March, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12196 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANAD P
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O BHASKARAN,
SRI DENESH, SCHOOL PARA, ALAVIL P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670008.
BY ADVS.
BINOY VASUDEVAN
RINCY KHADER
SREEJITH SREENATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
(ERSTWHILE KANNUR DISTRICT
CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KANNUR REGIONAL
OFFICE, P.B.NO.35, KANNUR - 670001.
2 THE MANAGER,
KERALA BANK (ERSTWHILE KANNUR
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
PUTHIYATHERU MAIN BRANCH,
KANNUR, PIN - 670001.
BY ADV M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12196 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kerala 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 ₹33 lakhs to the petitioner as
Mortgage Loan in the year 2023. 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 due to
financial constraints. 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.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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2023. 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.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 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 ₹39,67,601/- and the overdue
amount as on 27.03.2024 is ₹7,25,948/-.
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 an amount
of ₹3 lakhs on or before 30.03.2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
overdue amount in subsequent consecutive
10 equal monthly instalments thereafter,
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) 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) 12196/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 25-09-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
20-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED
OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
