Kerala High Court
Preethi Subhash vs Union Bank Of India 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. 18507 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PREETHI SUBHASH
AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SUBHASH, KALATHIL HOUSE,
VIMALANAGAR POST. OZHAKODY, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD, PIN - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
V.A.VINOD
N.S.AJAY
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA
KALPETTA CIVIL STATION BRANCH, KALPETTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER,
PIN - 673 121.
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
KALPETTA CIVIL STATION BRANCH, KALPETTA,
PIN - 673 121.
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
ATHIRA VIJAYAN(K/199/2024)
B.SREEDEVI(K/169/2024)
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.18507 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 Union Bank of India 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 ₹55.80 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2019. 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 Covid-19
pandemic. 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.P5 notice.
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
respondents are 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 respondents, 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 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 Ext.P5 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 due to the Bank from
the petitioner is ₹62.72 lakhs and the overdue amount is
₹5.80 lakhs.
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 an amount of
₹2 lakhs on or before 06.06.2024 and the
balance overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive two equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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 pays the instalments as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18507/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P (C)
NO 29418/2023 DATED 11.09.2023.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 20.12.2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO
1/2024 IN W.P (C) NO 29418/2023 DATED
14.03.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
01.04.2024 ISSUED FROM NMC SPECIALITY
HOSPITAL.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED
15.05.2024.
