Kerala High Court
Sadiq Ali K.K vs The Perithalmanna Urban 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. 17653 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SADIQ ALI K.K
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, AGED 35 YEARS,
KANDUKANDAN HOUSE, CHEMMENKADAVU,
DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676519
BY ADVS.
R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
K.S.SREEJA
RESPONDENT:
THE PERITHALMANNA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE
URBAN BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
URBANK TOWER, PATTAMBI RD, SHANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
SRI.U.K. DEVIDAS
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.17653 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 Perinthalmanna Urban Co-operative Bank
Limited 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 ₹60 lakhs to the petitioner as Over
Draft facility in the year 2020. 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 due to financial
difficulty. The repayment of advance 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.P1 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
advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2020. The
petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.
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.P1 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 remit the outstanding
amount in instalments, 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 ₹89,58,230/-.
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
outstanding amount of ₹89,58,230/- in 15
consecutive and equal 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
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17653/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 ISSUED A NOTICE SAYING THAT SHE WILL
INSPECT THE SECURED ASSET ON
06/02/2024. THE TRUE COPY OF THE
NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MC- 142/2024
OF HON'BLE CJM COURT, MANJERI DATED
03/02/2024
