Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs The Authorised Officer, The Kerala ... 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. 11653 OF 2024
PETITIONER
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KUNHI, THERUKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. MULAYANKAVU,
KULUKKALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
P.JAYARAM
O.M.RAVI
P.B.AJOY
A.M.THOMAS (AYKAN)
RESPONDENTS
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, P.O. PALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
KOPPAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
P.O.KOPPAM, PULASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679307
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:
WP(C) NO.11653 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 State Co-operative Bank Limited 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 ₹23 lakhs to the petitioner as
Mortgage 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 repayment installments 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.
WP(C) NO.11653 Of 2024
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.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 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
petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
WP(C) NO.11653 Of 2024
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 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
WP(C) NO.11653 Of 2024
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 27.03.2024 is ₹49,17,340/-.
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.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit ₹10 lakhs on
or before 15.04.2024 and the balance
WP(C) NO.11653 Of 2024
outstanding amount in 10 consecutive and
equal monthly installments immediately
thereafter along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) 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.11653 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11653/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
13/02/2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
18/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED
27/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN
REPLY TO THE NOTICE DATED 16/11/2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT CASE RECORD
DATED 12/08/2023 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM E.M.S. MEMORIAL
COOPERATIVE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE
LTD
