Kerala High Court
Bipin S.K vs The Area Manager And Authorised Officer on 22 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18255 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 BIPIN S.K., AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARAN P, KAIRALI NIVAS, THEVANNOOR P.O.
ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691533
2 KAIRALI S., AGED 61 YEARS
W/O, SASIDHARAN, KAIRALI NIVAS, THEVANNOOR P.O.,
ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691533
BY ADVS.
P.SIVARAJ
MEGHA.M.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AREA MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PB NO.5122 EAST FORT, FORT P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, KOLLAM, PIN - 691534
3 ADV. NEERAVIL B. KRISHNAKUMAR,
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER |ST FLOOR,
PARAVOOR BUILDINGS, EAST OF CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, R1 AND R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.18255 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (Kerala Bank) to
the 1st 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 1st petitioner as
Cash Credit facility in the year 2020. The 2nd petitioner stood
as surety to the said loan. The petitioners state that though
the petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial
repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay
the repayment instalments promptly later due to financial
stringency. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the
petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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 Exts.P1 and P2
notices.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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
respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to continue with the
coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets
provided by the petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is submitted
that the advance was given to the 1st petitioner in the year
2020. The petitioners committed default in maintaining the
advance.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and
required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately
omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other
go than to proceed against the petitioners invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. The impugned Exts.P1 and P2 were issued in these
circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal
reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the
Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are ready and willing to remit the outstanding
amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted
to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from
the petitioners as on 22.05.2024 is ₹23,83,446/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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
petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹23,83,446/- in 12
consecutive and equal monthly instalments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. First of such instalments
shall be paid on or before 24.06.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
Bank will be at liberty to continue with the
coercive proceedings against the petitioners
in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18255/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04-08-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE
DATED 08-05-2024 ISSUED BY ADV.
NEERAVIL 8. KRISHNAKUMAR IN M.C. NO.
364/2024 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS
OF LST PETITIONER'S WIFE SMT. MANIJA
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS
OF LST PETITIONER'S FATHER-IN- IAW,
SRI.MADHU
