Kerala High Court
Jayanandan M.P vs Union Bank Of India on 28 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19070 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JAYANANDAN M.P
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O APPUKUTTY, VARIKKADIMMAL HOUSE,
PALATH P.O, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673316
2 VISHNU K
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O JAYANANDAN M.P VARIKKADIMMAL HOUSE,
PALATH P.O, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673316
BY ADVS.
SALMAN FARIS
VICTOR ANTONY NOONE
EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.
ASWIN K.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
WEST HILL BRANCH, KSHB COMPLEX,
CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
UNION BANK OF INDIA, WEST HILL BRANCH,
KSHB COMPLEX, CHAKKORATHUKULAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
SRI.A.S.P. KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.19070 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Union Bank of India 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 ₹8.5 lakhs to the petitioners as
Housing Loan in the year 2020. 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 due to
financial stringency. The repayment of loan fell into arrears
later. 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.P4 notice.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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
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 loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
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.P4 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 as on 28.05.2024 is ₹10,10,300/- and the
overdue amount as on 28.05.2024 is ₹1.5 lakhs.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
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 account initially. The default in repayment of the loan
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 ₹50,000/-
within a period of two weeks from today and
the balance overdue amount in eight
consecutive and equal monthly instalments
thereafter along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioners commit single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
the 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 make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19070/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT MEDICAL
RECORDS DATED 14.06.2022 AND
09.07.2022 ISSUED BY IQRAA HOSPITAL
AND GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 05.12.202 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
07.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK
