Kerala High Court
Thomas O.M vs Kerala Gramin Bank Represented By The ... 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. 12357 OF 2024
PETITIONER
THOMAS O.M
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW OLICKAL HOUSE, KARIKKOTTAKARI,
KOOMANTHODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670704
BY ADV JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR- 2, KGB TOWER,
PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR -2, PIN - 680004
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER
KERALA GRAMIN BANK , KARIKOTTAKARI BRANCH ,
KOOMANTHODE P.O. KANNORE- DT,
PIN - 670704
SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR-R1 & R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.12357 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 Gramin Bank to the petitioner, invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
2. The petitioner is the principal borrower as well as
co-obligant to another two loans availed by his wife. 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 installments
promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
control of the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
installments, 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.P5 notice.
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 installments. 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
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
petitioner. 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.P5 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
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
submitted that the outstanding amount towards Educational
Loan as on 25.03.2024 ₹2,16,675/- and the outstanding
amounts towards KCC loan is ₹1,06,778/-, towards KCC loan
taken by his wife is ₹ 83,555/- and towards Agricultural Term
Loan is ₹3,54,331/-.
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 loan
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.
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount towards KCC loan of
₹1,06,778/- on or before 30.03.2024.
(ii) The overdue amount of Educational
loan, outstanding amount towards KCC loan
taken by the his wife and Agricultural Term
Loan taken by his wife would come to
₹6,54,561/- which shall be paid in 12
consecutive and equal monthly installments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. The 1st instalment shall be
paid on or before 30.04.2024.
(iii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs towards Educational Loan 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
hmh
WP(C) NO.12357 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12357/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE RELATING
TO THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY ISSUED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AT AYYANKUNNU
DATED 20-02-2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 10-11-
2023 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 16-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER TO
THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 28-02-2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 29-02-2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12-03-
2024 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS THROUGH
REGISTERED POST
