Kerala High Court
Sathyan K M vs People Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... 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. 17685 OF 2024
MC NO.1026 OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SATHYAN K M
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O MANIYAN, KEERELIMALA HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI. PO,
KAKKANAD, ATHANI ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADV K.S.HASEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 PEOPLE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.51
HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT THRIPUNITHURA, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KNAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 682301.
2 THE MANAGER
PEOPLE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.51, THRIKKAKKARA
BRANCH,VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
BY ADVS.
Devaprasanth P.J
SMINI JOSE(K/262/2015)
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. 17685 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 People Urban 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 ₹7 lakhs to the petitioner as Term
Loan in the year 2019. 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 installments promptly later due to financial
stringencies. The repayment of loan 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
installments, 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 installments. 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.
On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was
given to the petitioner in the year 2019. 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 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 23.05.2024 is ₹7,25,613/- and
the overdue amount as on 23.05.2024 is ₹3,60,758/-.
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
₹3,60,758/- in 12 consecutive and equal monthly
installments along with accruing interest and other
Bank charges, if any. First of such installments shall be
paid on or before 24.06.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default in making
payments as directed above, the respondent 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.
(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the
Bank for availing One Time Settlement in the
meanwhile, without violating the payment schedule as
directed above.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
Sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17685/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
30.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 27.04.2024.
Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.05.2024.
