Benedict.E vs State Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 12491 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12491 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Benedict.E vs State Bank Of India 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. 17833 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BENEDICT.E
         AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ESSAKKIYAS,
         KOIPPALLIVILAKOM, SOUTH KOLLEMKODE,
         POZHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN - 695 013.

         BY ADV
              LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, LMS COMPOUND,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

    2    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         RETAIL ASSET CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE-II,
         PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

    3    BRANCH MANAGER
         STATE BANK OF INDIA, POZHIYOOR BRANCH,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 013.

         BY ADV
              JITHESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17833 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 State Bank of India 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 ₹8,28,501/- to the petitioner as

Housing Loan in the year 2010. 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. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to Covid-19

pandemic. 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.P2 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

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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2010. 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.P2 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 20.05.2024is ₹9,58,514/- and the

overdue amount is ₹2,77,472/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹2,77,472/- in 10 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid

on or before 21.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.


         (iv)    If the petitioner pays the instalments

         as      directed    above,     any     coercive

proceedings against the petitioner shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17833/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION WARRANT ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 09.04.2024.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03.05.2024.