Shobil P Mathew vs The Authorized Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 14152 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14152 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Shobil P Mathew vs The Authorized Officer on 29 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 19338 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         SHOBIL P MATHEW
         AGED 40 YEARS
         CHERUKARAPALAKKAMANNIL, THEODICAL P.O.,
         THIRUVALLA, AYIROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
         PIN - 689 613.

         BY ADVS.
         JACOB CHACKO
         GEORGE JOSEPH (ITTANKULANGARA)
         BINU PAUL (NETTOOR)
         P.SUJITH KUMAR
         R.RAJA RAJA VARMA

RESPONDENT:

         THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         CITY UNION BANK ,
         CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ,
         NARAYANA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO. 24-BH,
         GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM-, TAMILNADU,
         PIN - 612 001.

         BY ADVS.
         THOMAS T.VARGHESE
         ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999)
         V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006)
         K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013)


    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19338 of 2024
                                  :2:




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the City Union Bank to the

petitioner and others, invoking the provisions of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash

Credit facility in the year 2014. The petitioner states that

though the petitioner and others made remittances promptly

during the initial repayment period of the financial advance,

he could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later

due to financial crisis. 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.P2 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the outstanding amounts towards the advance, 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 2014. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the 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.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 29.05.2024 is ₹ 25,76,956/-.

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 maintenance of the

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 ₹25,76,956/- in five

equal and consecutive monthly instalments

along with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any. First of such instalments

shall be paid within three weeks.

(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.

(iii) If the petitioner pays the instalments

as directed above, confirmation of sale shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AJ

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF STATEMENT OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 10.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SALE NOTICE DATED 10.05.2024 AND REQUEST FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 12.05.2024 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT