Kerala High Court
Soosadima K vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 17 January, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:3817
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. 35 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SOOSADIMA K.,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. KALISTHU, TC 26/807-1, S
HRUTHI, CHEMPAKA NAGAR,
BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695001
BY ADV JOSE ANTONY
RESPONDENT:
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
3RD FLOOR, YWCA BUILDING,
SPENCER JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
P.PRAMEL
SOORAJ M.S.
VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR
MANU BABY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 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 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 ₹1 Crore towards Overdraft,
₹20,18,000/- and ₹10,00,000/- towards Term Loans 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
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
petitioner.
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
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
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that
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. 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. 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
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
submitted that the total outstanding amount due to the Bank
from the petitioner as on 06.01.2025 is ₹1,16,29,003.11.
8. The Standing Counsel representing the Bank
vehemently opposed the writ petition. The Standing Counsel
submitted that the total amount payable by the petitioner
would exceed ₹1,16,29,003.11. If the petitioner wants to settle
the loan account, the entire outstanding will have to be paid
on or before 31.03.2025.
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
which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
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 ₹1,16,29,003.11 in
four 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
17.02.2025.
(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
petitioner in accordance with law.
2025:KER:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
(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:3817
WP(C) NO.35 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 18.07.2024 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER AND ANOTHER BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
21.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN M.C. NO.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE
NO.RCC/2023/TC/5980 DATED 29.12.2023
ISSUED BY MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
24.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
BANK.
