Kerala High Court
Girija Satheesh Kumar vs Peoples Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd No. ... 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. 16348 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 GIRIJA SATHEESH KUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O SATHEESH KUMAR,
ALINGAL HOUSE, MAHATHMA GRANDHALAYA ROAD,
VADUTHALA P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023.
2 SATHEESH KUMAR A V
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN,
ALINGAL HOUSE, MAHATHMA GRANDHALAYA ROAD,
VADUTHALA P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023.
BY ADV S.DILEEP (KALLAR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 PEOPLES URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 51
VADUTHALA BRANCH, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682023.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
PEOPLES URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.51,
HEAD OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301.
BY ADVS.
DEVAPRASANTH P.J
SMINI JOSE
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.16348 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 People's 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 ₹25 lakhs to the petitioners as
Term Loan in the year 2021. 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 Covid-
19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. 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 P3
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
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 2021. 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 Exts.P1 and P3 notices 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 make a substantial
payment soon and remit the balance overdue amount
immediately thereafter, 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 is ₹20,77,971/- and the overdue amount as on
23.05.2024 is ₹3,90,497/-.
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 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 ₹3,90,497/- in 12 equal and
consecutive monthly instalments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
any. The first instalment shall be paid on or
before 24.06.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with 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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16348/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
BEARING REF NO. ML 173103202100028
DATED 06/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE PASS BOOK STANDS IN THE NAME OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER MAINTAINED WITH THE
1ST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF
PAYMENTS.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE
BEARING NO. ML 173103202100028 DATED
12/04/2024.
