Kerala High Court
Nazar.K vs Kerala Gramin Bank Poochakhal Branch on 31 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 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19683 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 NAZAR.K
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O AMMUNNI,
NEDUMPARAMBU, PANAVALLY.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688566.
2 SUBAIDA.P
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O NAZAR,
PUTHUKKUDI, PANAVALLY.P.O,
ALAPPUZHA PIN - 688566.
BY ADVS.
JIBY G.J.
SINDHU K.S.
AKHILA RAMESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK POOCHAKHAL BRANCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER( SPECIAL SALE
OFFICER) POOCHAKKAL BRANCH., PIN - 688526.
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER
REGIONAL OFFICE, RECOVERIES AND LEGAL WING,
HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682025.
BY ADV.SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.19683 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kerala Gramin Bank 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 ₹7,50,000/- to the petitioners as
Housing Loan in the year 2016 and an Agricultural Loan. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. 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 Exts.P2 and P3
notices.
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 2016. 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 Exts.P2 and P3 notices were 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 remit the balance
overdue amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be
granted to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the overdue amount in Housing Loan
account due to the Bank from the petitioners as on
31.05.2024 is ₹3,05,144/- and the closure amount in
Agricultural Loan Account is ₹2,575/-..
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 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 the overdue
amount of ₹3,05,144/- and the closure
amount of ₹2,575/- in Agricultural Loan
account in six equal and consecutive
monthly instalments along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any. The
first instalment shall be paid on or before
01.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondents will be at liberty to continue with
coercive proceedings against the petitioners
in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs in the Housing Loan account 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
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19683/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION
OF THE PASS BOOK PERTAINING TO THE
HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT NO 68115324000416
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 04.01.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
24.05.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 27.05.2024
