Kerala High Court
Vividha Baburaj vs The Authorised Officer 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. 18019 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VIVIDHA BABURAJ
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O BABURAJ, USHAMANDIRAM KOTTAYI
KOTTAYI-II, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678572
BY ADVS.
NIFFIN P. KAREEM
BRISONE T. MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NRI BRANC, ROBINSON ROAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, NRI BRANCH,
ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
BY ADV AMAL GEORGE-STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.18019 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 State Bank of India 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 ₹20,47,880/- to the petitioner as
Housing Loan in the year 2015. The petitioner states that
though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the
initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could
not pay the repayment installments promptly later as the
petitioner's husband lost his job in Dubai. The repayment of
loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the
control of the petitioner.
WP(C) No.18019 Of 2024
3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit
the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
installments, 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 notice.
4. The petitioner states that she 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 installments. If the
respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive
proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the
petitioner, she 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 loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The
WP(C) No.18019 Of 2024
petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required her 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 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 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 20.05.2024 is ₹26,96,934/-.
WP(C) No.18019 Of 2024
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 ₹26,96,934/- in 15
consecutive and equal monthly installments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. First of such installments
WP(C) No.18019 Of 2024
shall be paid on or before 01.07.2024.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the
respondent 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.
(iv) The petitioner will be at liberty to
approach the Bank for availing One Time
Settlement in the meanwhile, without
violating the payment schedule as directed
above.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.18019 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18019/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCANNING REPORT OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 01.10.2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C )
NO. 11154 OF 2023 DATED 29/03/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
BANK DATED 16.01.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ONE
TIME SETTLEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 13.05.2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WP
(C) 11154/2023 EXCLUDING EXHIBITS
DATED 29/03/2023
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF
ACCOUNTS FOR THE HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT
NO. 35258353511 FROM 01/11/2019 TILL
21/05/2024
