Kerala High Court
Sabeena vs Muvattupuzha Urban Co-Operative Bank ... 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. 6852 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SABEENA
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O SHAKKEER, MANGAMBRA HOUSE, EAST MARADY P O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
2 SHAKKEER M T
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O SAID MUHAMMED THAMBIKUNJ, MANGAMBRA HOUSE,
EAST MARADY P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686673
BY ADV S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO-556
KSRTC JUNCTION BRANCH, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686661
2 MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO-556
HEAD OFFICE, KACHERITHAZHAM, MUVATTUPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 686661
BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
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.6852 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Muvattupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Limited
to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹15 lakhs to the petitioners as Term
Loan in the year 2020. 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 loan 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 Ext.P1 notice.
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
the respondents 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 the respondents, it is submitted that
the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
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 Ext.P1 was 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 overdue
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 23.05.2024 is ₹21,13,319/- and the
overdue amount as on 23.05.2024 is ₹13,48,319/-.
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 overdue
amount of ₹13,48,319/- in 14 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
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) 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) 6852/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED
05/02/2024 TO THE PETITIONERS AND
OTHER PERSONS.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT
DATED 30/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT
DATED 04/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
