Sudheerkumar vs Union Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 13028 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13028 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sudheerkumar vs Union Bank Of India on 23 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 7680 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SUDHEERKUMAR
         AGED 50 YEARS
         S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR , 'KRISHNAKRIPA ',
         KIZHAKKE KURUNGOTTU ,CHEVAYUR P.O ,
         KOZHIKODE DT, PIN - 673017

         BY ADVS.
         M.R.REENA
         P.S.SUJETH


RESPONDENT:

         UNION BANK OF INDIA
         REP ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER KSHB COMPLEX,
         VIKAS NAGAR, CHAKKORATHUKULAM
         KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017

         BY ADVS.
         ASP.KURUP
         SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
         C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
         SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
         RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)
         ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
         B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.7680 of 2024
                              2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Union 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 ₹31.5 lakhs towards Housing Loan

and ₹10 lakhs towards Mudra Loan to the petitioner in the

year 2018. 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 due to financial stringency. The

repayment of loans fell into arrears later. 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 loans, if sufficient time

is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. 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

loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2018. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

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 remit the overdue amount

in instalments, 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 27.02.2024 is ₹55,36,200/- and the overdue

amount as on 27.02.2024 is ₹26,29,800/-.

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 ₹26,29,800/- in 10 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 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 spk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7680/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 06-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-02-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1A A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE