Shaji.S vs The Branch Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 13896 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shaji.S vs The Branch Manager 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. 19135 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SHAJI.S
         AGED 51 YEARS
         S/O SHAIKMOIDEEN RAWTHER CHAMAVILAKIZHAKKETHIL,
         ATHIKKATTUKULANGARA, NOORANAD PALAMEL,
         ALAPPUZHA-, PIN - 690504

         BY ADVS.
         R.SUNIL KUMAR
         A.SALINI LAL
         ARUN KRISHNA
         JINU P. BINU


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE BRANCH MANAGER
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK
         ATHIKKATTUKULANGARA NOORANADU,
         ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690504
    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         KERALA GRAMIN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,
         ERNAKULAM COASTAL TOWERS,
         SAMSKARA JUNCTION PIPE LINE ROAD,
         PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682025

         SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

     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.19135 of 2024
                              2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the Kerala Gramin 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 ₹7.5 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash

Credit facility in the year 2018. 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

stringency. 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

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 advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2018.

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 28.05.2024 is ₹3,90,358/-.

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 ₹3,90,358/- in eight

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 28.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents 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) 19135/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 20/5/24 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/5/24