Kerala High Court
Jojomon M.V vs State Bank Of India on 24 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12344 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JOJOMON M.V
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH VARGHESE
MANGALASSERY HOUSE PERUNNA,
CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM - 686102.
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
DAINY DAVIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA
EZHINJILLAM BRANCH PERINGARA P.O.
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689108
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH LMS
COMPOUND, OPPOSITE MUSEUM WEST GATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695033.
BY ADV.SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.12344 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the State 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 ₹6 lakhs to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2009 and two Top Up Loans in the
years 2013 and 2017. 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 Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loans fell into arrears. 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 he is 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
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 respondents, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2009, 2013
and 2017. The petitioner committed default in repaying the
loans.
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.P5 notice 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 25.03.2024 is ₹24,96,592/-.
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 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 an amount of
₹5 lakhs within a period of one month from
today.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
outstanding amount in subsequent
consecutive ten equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioner commits 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.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12344/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING LOAN IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK FOR THE PERIOD FROM
31-3-2019 TO 2-3-2024
Exhibit P2 TURE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT
NO.67235825144 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 13-
7-2021 TO 2-3-2024 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.
67235836597 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15-7-
2020 TO 2-3-2024 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
FOR THE PERIOD FROM 22-2-2017 TO 2-3-
2024 IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT
NO. 67393508676 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 22-2-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED
30/03/2024 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
RS. 50,000/- TO THE RESPONDENT BANK
