Kerala High Court
Varkey @ George.O.M vs Kereala Bank (Kerala State ... 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. 11036 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VARKEY @ GEORGE.O.M
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.MATHAI, ORAPPAN KUZHIMATTATHIL HOUSE,
KILIYANTHARA.P.O, AYYANKUNNU AMSOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706
BY ADVS.
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
V.A.SATHEESH
ANAND V.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 KEREALA BANK
(KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.)
IRITTY MAIN BRANCH, IRITTY.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 670705
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD,
KANNUR, PIN - 670001
BY ADV M.SASINDRAN
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.11036 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 Kerala Bank (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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as
Personal Loan in the year 2020. 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 loan 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 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 instalments. 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 2020. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 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 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 26.03.2024 is ₹11,03,420/- and the overdue
amount as on 26.03.2024 is ₹7,50,814/-.
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 ₹7,50,814/- 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
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
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11036/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO.KB/KNR/RO/RD/SF/150/2021-22 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 8.6.2023.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO.KB/KNR/RO/RF/SF/150/2020-21 DATED
8.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
