Kerala High Court
Riyas vs The Branch Manager 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. 4223 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
RIYAS,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. JAMALUDHEEN,
THEYYAMPADI ADUKKATH P.O,
KUTTIADY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673508
BY ADV. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IDBI BANK LTD, KALPETTA,
KALPETTA BUSINESS CENTRE,
BYPASS JUNCTION, WAYANAD,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
2 AUTHORISED SALE OFFICER,
IDBI BANK LTD, KALPETTA,
KALPETTA BUSINESS CENTRE,
BYPASS JUNCTION, WAYANAD,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
BY ADV. R.REMA
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.4223/2023
: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 IDBI 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 ₹40 lakhs to the petitioner as
KCC Loan and an amount of ₹5,95,119/- as FIT 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 instalments promptly later due to financial
difficulties. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. 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 outstanding 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 Exts.P1 and P2
notices.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to
clear the outstanding 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 loans were 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices were 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 remit the balance
outstanding amount in instalments, 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 11.03.2024 is
₹83,31,791/-.
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
account 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:6
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹83,31,791/- 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 29.04.2024.
(ii) 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.
(iii) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4223/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOTSTAT COPY OF LOAN RECALL
NOTICE DATED 13-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF POSSESSION
NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK ON 24-12-2021 IN 'MADHYAMAM'
DAILY NEWSPAPER
