Thadathil Valappil Abdul Sathar vs The Federal Bank
2025 Latest Caselaw 4452 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4452 Ker
Judgement Date : 24 February, 2025

Kerala High Court

Thadathil Valappil Abdul Sathar vs The Federal Bank on 24 February, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                     WP(C) NO. 7318 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         THADATHIL VALAPPIL ABDUL SATHAR
         AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. K. P. IBRAHIM KUTTY,
         SAIRA MANZIL, EZHOME MOOLA, EZHOME,
         KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670334.


         BY ADVS.
         M.ANUROOP
         M.DEVESH
         MURSHID ALI M.
         JYOTHIS MARY




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE FEDERAL BANK
         TALIPARAMBA, BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH
         MANAGER, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 670141.

    2    THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
         THE FEDERAL BANK, LCRD DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR,
         ADITYA TOWER, OPP. RTO OFFICE, SOUTH BAZAR,
         KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670002.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY P
         SRI.SREEJITH K.


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2025,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:15950
W.P.(C)No.7318 of 2025
                                 :2:




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the 1st 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 ₹41 lakhs to the petitioner as

Housing Loan 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. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of

the petitioner.

2025:KER:15950

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 invoking Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002.

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.

2025:KER:15950

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 2018. The petitioner

committed default in repaying the loan.

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 loan

account is declared as NPA in the year 2021. The petitioner has

not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive

proceedings initiated by the Bank.

2025:KER:15950

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 24.02.2025 is ₹18,34,845/-.

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.

2025:KER:15950

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 an amount of

₹5 lakhs within one month from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive

10 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along

with accruing interest and other Bank charges,

if any.

(iii) 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 2025:KER:15950

accordance with law.

(iv) 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:15950

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7318/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBIT