Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kurian vs Kerala Bank (Kerala State Co-Operative ... 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. 17796 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1 SANTHOSH KURIAN
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O KURIAN THOMAS,
ALANCHERIL, THEKKEMADE, PALOORKAVU,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 532.
2 KURIAN THOMAS
AGED 80 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, ALANCHERIL, THEKKEMADE,
PALOORKAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685 532.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU DAS
SRUTHI DAS
MAJESH P.B.
MARIA NEETHU T.J
ANAGHA A.S.
GINI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA BANK (KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK) IDUKKI
, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST BRANCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
35TH MILE, KALLOR BUILDING, XIII/173, MUNDAKAYAM
EAST P.O, IDUKKI.,
PIN - 686 573.
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
CREDIT PROCESSING CENTRE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685 602.
BY ADV
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
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.17796 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 Kerala Bank 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 ₹10 lakhs towards Housing Loan
and ₹1 lakh towards Womens Loan to the petitioners in the
years 2017 and 2019. 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. The
repayment of loans fell into arrears later due to financial
stringency. 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 Ext.P1 notice.
4. The petitioners state that they are still in a position
to clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 loans were given to the petitioners in the years 2017 and
2019. The petitioners committed default in repaying the
loans.
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 Ext.P1 was 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 ₹15,46,627/- and the overdue amount as
on 17.05.2024 is ₹9,64,175/-.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned 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 accounts initially. The default in repayment of the
loan accounts 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 ₹9,64,175/- in 15 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 petitioners commit single 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 pay the instalments
as directed above, any coercive
proceedings against the petitioners shall
stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17796/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS DATED 04.01.2024.
