Kerala High Court
Jose Prakash S L vs State Bank Of India, Represented By Its ... 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. 18128 OF 2024
MC NO.113 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF
CYBER CRIME
PETITIONER:
JOSE PRAKASH S L
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O SALTER, NANO VILLA, KUDUMBANOOR,
NEMOM. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695020
BY ADV RAJITHA V.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
SARB, LMS COMPOUND,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695033
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SARB,
LMS COMPOUND, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -,
PIN - 695033
BY SRI. JITHESH MENON, 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.18128 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 ₹34,00,000/- to the petitioner as
Housing 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 serious
life-threatening disease and medical expenses. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the outstanding 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.P2 Advocate Commissioner notice.
4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to
clear the outstanding 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.18128 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. The petitioner's loan account was declared
as NPA in the year 2023. 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 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 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
WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024
the petitioner as on 20.05.2024 is ₹36,86,417/-.
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 ₹36,86,417/- in twelve
consecutive and equal monthly installments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
WP(C) NO.18128 OF 2024
charges, if 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) 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.18128 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18128/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 28-03-2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 29-04-2024
