[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vineeth K.V vs The Authorized Officer on 26 December, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:98848
W.P.(C)No.48366 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 5TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48366 OF 2025
IN CMP NO.11029 OF 2025 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE ,THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
VINEETH K.V,
AGED 38 YEARS,
SON OF VENUGOPAL K.,
KOLLERY HOUSE, THALORE P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
SMT.S.SHREYASHREE ANIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
ICIC BANK LTD, ZONAL OFFICE, PUSHPAMANGALAM,
ESTATE, NEAR NH BYPASS, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 680024
2 ICICI BANK LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED,
OFFICER ,PUSHPAMANGALAM ESTATE, NH
BYPASS,EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
BY ADV.
SRI.AKASH GEORGE, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98848
W.P.(C)No.48366 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of December, 2025
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the ICICI 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 ₹ 34,92,748/- to the petitioner
as two Housing Loans 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 instalments promptly later. The repayment of loan 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
2025:KER:98848
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
loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2018. 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
2025:KER:98848
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The
impugned Ext.P1 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 overdue 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
is more than ₹34,00,000/- and the overdue amount as on
26.12.2025 is ₹ 6,46,741/-.
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 occurred lately
due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The
2025:KER:98848
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 ₹6,46,741/- in eight consecutive and
equal monthly installments along with accruing
interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of
such installments shall be paid within a period
of one month from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall also pay the
current EMIs in respect of both the loan
accounts promptly.
(iii) If the petitioner remits the overdue
amount and makes an application for
2025:KER:98848
reqularisation of the loan account, the
respondents shall consider the same.
(iv) If the petitioner commits two
consecutive 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.
(v) If the petitioner pays the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioner will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
VPK
2025:KER:98848
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48366 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
22/11/2025 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER
