Sasikumar P A vs The Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 12502 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sasikumar P A vs The Authorized 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. 17411 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          SASIKUMAR P A
          AGED 61 YEARS
          S/O APPUKUTTA MENON, R/O PKP NIVAS, CHETTIPARAMBIL LANE
          THEKUMABHAGAM VILLAGE TRIPUNITHRA, ERNAKULAM,
          PIN - 682301.
          BY ADVS.
          PRADEESH CHACKO
          SWATHY E.S.
          DANIEL A.J.


RESPONDENT:

          THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
          PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.51/
          THRIPUNITHRA , PB NO.1 H.O THRIPUNITHRA, PIN - 682301.

          BY ADVS.
          Devaprasanth P.J
          SMINI JOSE(K/262/2015)


     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. 17411 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

People's Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner and his

daughter as an Education Loan in the year 2022. 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 installments promptly later due to financial

stringencies. 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.P4 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 in the year 2022. 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.P4

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

₹18,99,983/- and the overdue amount as on 21.05.2024 is

₹2,33,328/-.

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 overdue amount

of ₹2,33,328/- 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.

(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs

along with the aforesaid payments.

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed

above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the

petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE Sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17411/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER DATED 19.09.22.

Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17/10/2023.

Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 19.02.2024.

Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/4/2024.