Subash Kumar S vs State Bank Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4021 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4021 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 February, 2025

Kerala High Court

Subash Kumar S vs State Bank Of India on 13 February, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                           2025:KER:11992




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                        PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946

                 WP(C) NO. 5072 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         SUBASH KUMAR S., AGED 55 YEARS
         S/O. (LATE) SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AVANI NILAYAM,
         VEILANNOOR, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         KERALA, PIN - 695543

         BY ADVS.
         A.AHZAR
         NADEEDA FATHMA M.M.



RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         VELLANAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         KERALA, PIN - 695542

    2    AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         STATE BANK OF INDIA,
         STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, OPP. WEST GATE,
         VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

         BY ADV. SRI. JITHESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:11992
WP(C) No.5072 of 2025
                                2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025

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 lakhs towards Housing

Loan in the year 2015 and ₹1.38 lakhs towards Suraksha

Loan to the petitioner. 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 loans fell into

arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control

of the petitioner.

2025:KER:11992

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.P5 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 2025:KER:11992

petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that

the Housing Loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015.

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. The loan account of the petitioner has

become NPA in the year 2024. 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.P5 was issued

in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any

legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by

the Bank. The Bank filed O.A. before the Debts Recovery

Tribunal.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted

that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial 2025:KER:11992

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 as on 07.02.2025 is ₹32,68,049/- and the

overdue amount as on 07.02.2025 is ₹6,03,400/-.

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.

2025:KER:11992

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with

the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit ₹1.5 lakhs

on or before 28.02.2025 and the balance

overdue amount in three consecutive and

equal monthly instalments thereafter along

with accruing interest and other Bank

charges, if any.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single

default in making payments as directed

above, the respondents will be at liberty to

continue with the coercive proceedings

against the petitioner in accordance with law.