Muhammed Shibil vs Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 12483 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12483 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Shibil vs Authorised Officer on 21 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

            MUHAMMED SHIBIL
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O., ABDUL AZEEZ LATE PALLIKKAL HOUSE, JUMA MASJID
            ROAD, KOTTIKKULAM BEKAL P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671318.

            BY ADVS.
            K.I.SAGEER
            MUHAMMED YASIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1       AUTHORISED OFFICER
            KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD KANNUR REGIONAL
            OFFICE, P.B. NO.35, KANNUR, PIN - 670001.

    2       SENIOR MANAGER
            KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD UDUMA BRANCH, BEKAL
            P.O, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671318.

            SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2024              2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 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 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 ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner's father as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2016. The petitioner states that

though the petitioner's father made remittances promptly during

the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could

not pay the repayment installments promptly later as he was in

serious financial crisis. The petitioner's father expired on

30.04.2019. The repayment of loan 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

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.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 installments. 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 loan was

given to the petitioner's father in the year 2016. The petitioner's

father 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.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 21.05.2024 is ₹28,94,143/- and the

overdue amount as on 21.05.2024 is ₹25,51,806/-.

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 the outstanding amount

of ₹28,94,143/- in 12 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 21.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.