Kerala High Court
Sanjith S vs The Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban 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. 12870 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SANJITH S.,
AGED 41 YEARS,
NIRMALIYAM, KAVINPURAM,
VILAPPILSALA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM, PIN - 695573
2 APARNA S MOHAN
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O LATE.MOHANKUMAR,
RESIDING AT T.C.23/1317,
CHELAKATTUVILA VEEDU, ARA 24,
MELARANNOOR,
KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM, PIN - 695002
3 SHEELAKUMARI
AGED 61 YEARS
D/O LATE.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT T.C.25/1517,
CHELAKATTUVILAVEEDU, ARA 24,
MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM, PIN - 695002
BY ADVS.
K.B.PRADEEP
HARISANKAR R
HRIDYALAKSHMI P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD
NO.1959,
HEAD OFFICE MG ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PIN - 695001
W.P.(C) No.12870/2024
:2:
2 CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,
THYCAUD BRANCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, PIN - 695035
BY ADV. NISHA GEORGE
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.12870/2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the Trivandrum Co-operative
Urban Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹15 lakhs to the petitioners as
Business Loan in the year 2018. The petitioners state that
though the petitioners made remittances promptly during
the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they
could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due
to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into
arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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 petitioners state that they are 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 petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted
that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2018.
The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners
and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners
deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the
Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the
petitioners 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 petitioners have
not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive
proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the
Bank from the petitioners is ₹9,40,542/- and the overdue
amount is ₹82,000/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and
the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners have
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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the
overdue amount of ₹82,000/- in 10
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 15.04.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners pay the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12870/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.02-02-2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.16-03-
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DT.25-03-2024.
