Kerala High Court
Sajimon P.V vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank ... 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. 18321 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SAJIMON P.V
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN,
RESIDING AT PARACHALIL HOUSE,
MYLAKOMBU P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685608.
BY ADV DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
M & E BRANCH, THODUPUZHA.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
PIN - 685584.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
UNDER THE SARFAESI ACT
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,
(IDUKKI CPC), IDUKKI COLONY P.O .,
PIN - 685605.
BY ADV K.S.ARUN KUMAR
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.18321 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the Kerala State Co-operative 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 ₹30 lakhs to the petitioner as OLCC
Loan in the year 2014 and ₹1 lakh as Woman Easy Loan in
the year 2020. 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.P2 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 2014 and
2020. 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.P2 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 remit the balance overdue
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 27.05.2024 is ₹57,62,158/- and the
overdue amount as on 27.05.2024 is ₹1,49,824/-.
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 accounts 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 the overdue
amount of ₹1,49,824/- in ten 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 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.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(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) 18321/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
UNDER RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY
INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES DATED
10.11.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 08-04-2024
