Kerala High Court
Sibish Augustine vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala ... 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. 16880 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SIBISH AUGUSTINE,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. K.J. AUGUSTINE,
KANDATHIL HOUSE, PRAPOYIL P.O., CHERUPUZHA
VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511.
BY ADVS.
C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
NEERAJA VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 670001.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK),
CHERUPUZHA BRANCH, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670511.
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:
W.P.(C)No.16880 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 State Co-operative 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 ₹12 lakhs in the year 2019 and
₹2 lakhs in the year 2023 as Personal 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 Covid-19 pandemic. 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 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2019 and
2023. 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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices 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 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 due to the Bank from
the petitioner as on 10.05.2024 is ₹14,10,098/- and the
overdue amount is ₹7,27,430/-.
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 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 ₹7,27,430/- in ten 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 petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue
with 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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16880/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
7/11/2023 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERINGOME.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
12/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
