Jose K.V vs Idbi Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 13107 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13107 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Jose K.V vs Idbi 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. 18495 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         JOSE K.V
         AGED 60 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE,
         KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, CHITHRAPURAM P.O,
         PALLIVASAL IDUKKI, PIN - 685 511.

         BY ADVS.
              N.K.SHYJU
              GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN
              VISHNU MOHAN
              SAHLA NECHIYIL
              ATHIRA PADMENDHU

RESPONDENT:

         IDBI BANK LTD
         VALIYAPARAMBIL SHOPPING COMPLEX ADIMALI P.O,
         ADIMALI IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
         OFFICER, PIN - 685 561.

         BY ADV
              R.REMA

     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.18495 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 IDBI 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 ₹50 lakhs to the petitioner as

Agricultural Loan in the year 2014. 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. The

repayment of loan fell into arrears later. 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.P2 notice.

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

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 2014. 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 Ext.P2 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 outstanding 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 ₹96,69,217/-.

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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding

amount of ₹96,69,217/- in 10 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.