Kerala High Court
Bhavan M.E vs The Authorized Officer 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. 7968 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BHAVAN M.E
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O EMMANUEL,
MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PORUR, PORUR P.O.,
WAYANAD., PIN - 670644.
BY ADVS.
M.R.SASITH
R.K.CHIRUTHA
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KATTIMOOLA BRANCH,
KATTIMOOLA, VALAD-ALATTIL ROAD,
VALAD P.O., WAYANAD., PIN - 670644.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.7968 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 Gramin Bank 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 ₹5 lakhs as Business Loan in the
year 2018, ₹95,000/- as Business Loan, ₹25,000/- as Cash
Credit Facility, ₹1,25,000/- as Term Loan and ₹1,50,000/- as
Education Loan, to the petitioner. 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
constraints. The repayment of loans fell into arrears. 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 invoking
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
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. 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 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 overdue 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 in Cash Credit
account due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 28.02.2024
is ₹31,930/- and the overdue amount in Business Loans,
Term Loan and Education Loan as on 28.02.2024 is
₹5,54,724/-.
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 accounts initially. The default in repayment 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 ₹31,930/- in Cash
Credit Account within a period of one month
from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the overdue
amount of ₹5,54,724/- in the four loan
accounts in subsequent consecutive ten
equal monthly instalments thereafter, along
with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioner
in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7968/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 08.08.2023 PUBLISHED IN
MALAYALAM MANORAMA WAYANAD.
