S.Uthaman vs Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 8671 Ker

Kerala High Court

S.Uthaman vs Authorised Officer 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. 7502 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         S.UTHAMAN
         AGED 66 YEARS
         SUMESH BHAVANAM, S.V.MARKET P.O,
         KARUBAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690573.

         BY ADVS.
         K.JAGADEESH
         V.RENJU


RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORISED OFFICER
         FEDERAL BANK LTD, KOLLAM BRANCH,
         KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690573.

         BY ADVS.
         P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
         SREEJITH K.
         G.VISWANATHAN


     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.7502 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 Federal 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 ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2014 and ₹4,75,000/- as Top-Up

Loan in the year 2015. 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 Covid-19

pandemic. The repayment of loans 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.P3 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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that

the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2014 and

2015. The petitioner committed default in repaying the

loans.

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.P3 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 as on 04.03.2024 is ₹23,98,408/-

and the overdue amount is ₹6,61,848/-.

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 accounts 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 ₹6,61,848/- in 12 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. The first instalment shall be paid on or

before 29.04.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondent 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) 7502/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit.P.1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 11-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit.P.2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 16-1-2023 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit.P.3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-2-

                  2024    ISSUED  BY   THE   ADVOCATE
                  COMMISSIONER