Kerala High Court
Ahammed Kabeer vs Canara Bank Limited on 20 February, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:14890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43088 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AHAMMED KABEER,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O AHAMED KUTTY
KABEER MANZIL EZHUPUNNA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688514.
BY ADVS.
PADMALAYAN.P.P.
SYAM MOHAN C.
BINU SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT:
CANARA BANK LIMITED,
CHAVAKKAD BRANCH MUKKATH PLAZA,
BYEPASS JUNCTION ROAD, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 680506.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
W.P.(C)No.43088 of 2024
:2:
2025:KER:14890
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SMT.AKHILA NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.43088 of 2024
:3:
2025:KER:14890
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance
made by the respondent-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 ₹50 lakhs to the petitioner and
his three partners as Overdraft. The petitioner states that due to
some difference of opinion, the other three partners have
wilfully kept away from the petitioner. 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. It
happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
2025:KER:14890
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.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
respondent is 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. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
2025:KER:14890
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.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 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 20.02.2025 is ₹17,94,500/-.
2025:KER:14890
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned 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
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 ₹17,94,500/- in eight
2025:KER:14890
equal and consecutive monthly instalments,
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. The first of such instalments
shall be paid on or before 20.03.2025.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
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.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
2025:KER:14890
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43088/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBIT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED
10.10.2024
