Kerala High Court
Muhammad Salim vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... 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. 17757 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMAD SALIM
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, SHARAF VILLA (HOUSE) IRINGAL,
KOTTAKKAL P.O, KOZHIKODE DIST., PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER
PAYYOLI BRANCH, PAYYOLI (PO)
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673522
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER (SARFAESI ACT)
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
CALICUT REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAPPURAM P.O,
KOZHIKODE DIST., PIN - 673002
BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, 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.17757 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 Limited 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 ₹13,00,000/- to the petitioner as
Ordinary Loan in the year 2019. 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 business
loss. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due
to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.17757 OF 2024
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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.
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
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 2019. The
WP(C) NO.17757 OF 2024
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 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 ₹21,47,863/- and the
WP(C) NO.17757 OF 2024
overdue amount as on 21.05.2024 is ₹11,72,563/-.
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 ₹11,72,563/- in ten consecutive
and equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
WP(C) NO.17757 OF 2024
any. First of such installments shall be paid
on or before 21.06.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents 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
DCS
WP(C) NO.17757 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17757/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2023
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE
IN C.M.P NO.717/2024 DATED 30.04.2024
