Kerala High Court
Sethunath Purushothaman vs State Bank Of India on 17 January, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:3831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 36 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SETHUNATH PURUSHOTHAMAN,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN,
RESIDING AT CHANDRAAPURI, CMC11,
CHERTHALA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688524
BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR,
VENKARATH TOWERS,
PALARIVATTOM BYE-PASS JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
STRESSED ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, 7TH FLOOR,
VENKARATH TOWERS,
PALARIVATTOM BYE-PASS JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
SRI. JITHESH MENON,STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of January, 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 ₹51.85 lakhs towards Housing
Loan and 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 repayment installments promptly later.
The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.
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 installments. 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:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that
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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued in
these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any
legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by
the Bank.
7. Standing Counsel representing the Bank pointed
out that the petitioner's father had approached this Court
earlier filing W.P.(C) No.14508/2024 and this Court had
permitted the petitioner's father to repay the outstanding
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
amount in 14 instalments. The petitioner's father paid only
three instalments.
8. 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 as on 07.01.2025 is ₹55,66,953/-.
9. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
10. 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
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.
11. 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.
12. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the
outstanding amount of ₹55,66,953/- in ten
consecutive and equal monthly installments
along with accruing interest and other Bank
charges, if any. First of such installments
shall be paid on or before 31.01.2025.
(ii) If the petitioner commits default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
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
hmh
2025:KER:3831
WP(C) NO.36 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 04.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN CMP NO.
843/2024 IN MC NO. 168/2024 BEFORE THE
CJM COURT AT ALAPPUZHA DATED
19.03.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO. 14508
OF 2024 DATED 12/04/2024
