Bindu Rajendran vs Kerala State C O.Operative Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 13056 Ker

Kerala High Court

Bindu Rajendran vs Kerala State C O.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. 14212 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         BINDU RAJENDRAN,
         AGED 52 YEARS, W/O RAJENDRAN, KURASSERIYIL,
         KANNAMANGALAM NORTH CHETTIKULANGARA. P.O.,
         ALAPPUZHA, DISTRICT, PIN - 690 106.

         BY ADVS.
              K.M.ANEESH
              K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
              SHASHANK DEVAN

RESPONDENT:

         KERALA STATE C O.OPERATIVE BANK,
         KERALA STATE C O.OPERATIVE BANK,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.104,
         OPP MUNCIPAL TOWN HALL, ALAPPUZHA -REPRESENTED
         BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 688 001.

         BY ADV
              THOMAS ABRAHAM

     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.14212 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 ₹8 lakhs to the petitioner as MSME

Term Loan in the year 2021. The petitioner states that

though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the

initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could

not pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to financial

stringency. 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 she 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

respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive

proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the

petitioner, she 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 2021. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required her 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 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 is ₹8,79,158/- and the overdue amount as on

20.05.2024 is ₹3,19,690/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 account 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 her liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹3,19,690/- in 12 equal and

consecutive 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 petitioner commits single 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.

(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

         (iv)    If the petitioner pays the instalments

         as      directed    above,     any     coercive

proceedings against the petitioner shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14212/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12-03-2024.