Vinodkumar C.V vs Kerala Bank
2025 Latest Caselaw 2540 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vinodkumar C.V vs Kerala Bank on 17 January, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                                2025:KER:4065

         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. 1918 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         VINODKUMAR C.V.,
         AGED 55 YEARS,
         S/O.VIJAYACHANDRAN, SAHYADRI COLONY,
         CHANDRANAGAR,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004

         BY ADVS.
         T.K.SANDEEP
         SWETHA R.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    KERALA BANK,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
         PALAKKAD MAIN BRANCH, PDC BANK BUILDING,
         NEAR TOWN BUS STAND,
         PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014

    2    AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO21, H.P.O ROAD,
         SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001


         BY ADV.SRI.KS ARUNKUMAR, (SC)

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:4065
W.P.(C) No.1918/2025
                                :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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as

Mortgage Loan in the year 2019. 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 outstanding amounts in easy 2025:KER:4065

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 outstanding 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

loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The petitioner

committed default in repaying the loan.

2025:KER:4065

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 17.01.2025 is ₹35,50,550/- and the overdue

amount as on 17.01.2025 is ₹31,93,440/-.

2025:KER:4065

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 account

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 an amount of

₹3 lakhs on or before 31.01.2025.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive

12 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along 2025:KER:4065

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

accordance with law.

(iv) If the petitioner pays the amount as

directed above, any coercive proceedings

against the petitioner will stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR 2025:KER:4065

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1918/2025

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 02/12/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK.