Kerala High Court
Somu P.M vs The Manager Kerala State Co-Operative ... 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. 3373 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SOMU P.M
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O P.G MANUELPULICKAL HOUSE
CHERANALOOR P.O KACHERIPADY, PIN - 682 034.
BY ADVS.
SUSHANTH.J.
C.K.PREM RAJ
PRASANTH V.C.
VRINDA PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
PACHALAM BRANCH PACHALAM, NEAR KATTUNGAL
TEMPLE ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 012.
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD, PB NO 6515, COBANK TOWERS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695 033.
BY ADVS.
N.RAGHURAJ
K.AMMINIKUTTY
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.3373 of 2023
: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 as
House Purchase Loan in the year 2007. 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 some
unforeseen incidents. 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.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 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 2007. 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 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
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 21.05.2024 is ₹23,19,021/-.
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
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 an amount of
₹5 lakhs within a period of one month from
today and the balance outstanding amount
in subsequent consecutive 12 equal monthly
instalments thereafter, along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(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) 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) 3373/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
21.10.2020.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO:
23432 OF 2022 DATED 27.07.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 1.01.2018
TO 24.05.2022.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT
Exhibit R1[a] TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
DATED.30.8.2022 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER.
