Madhavi vs The Authorized Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 2613 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2613 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2025

Kerala High Court

Madhavi vs The Authorized Officer on 20 January, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                            2025:KER:4392



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                        PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 30TH POUSHA, 1946

                 WP(C) NO. 2077 OF 2025

PETITIONERS:

    1    MADHAVI
         AGED 68 YEARS
         W/O.T.P.VELAYUDHAN, THOTTUPURA HOUSE,
         ERAVU.P.O, ERAVU THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 680620

    2    BIJU.T.V
         AGED 48 YEARS
         S/O.T .P.VELAYUDHAN, THOTTUPURA HOUSE,
         ERAVU.P.O, ERAVU THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 680620


         BY ADVS.
         A.N.SATHISH KUMAR
         SUJATHA E.R.



RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
         THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
         (ERSTWHILE THRSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
         LTD) SAHAKARANA SATHABTHI MANDIRAM,
         TUDA ROAD, KOVILAKATHUPADAM,
         THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 680022
                                              2025:KER:4392
WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

                         2


    2     THE BRANCH MANAGER
          THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
          (ERSTWHILE THRSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
          LTD)
          ARIMBUR BRANCH, KUNNATHANGADI,
          VELUTHUR P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680012


          BY ADV
          K.S.ARUN KUMAR,STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:4392
WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

                              3



                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the respondent-Bank to the principal borrower,

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹10 lakhs to the principal borrower

as Ordinary Loan in the year 2017. The petitioners stood as

guarantors for the loan. The petitioners state that though the

petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial

repayment period of the financial advance, they 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 petitioners.

2025:KER:4392 WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to

permit the petitioners 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 Ext.P1 notice.

4. The petitioners state that they are 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

petitioners, they 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

petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that 2025:KER:4392 WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

the petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and

required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other

go than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal

reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the

Bank.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel

submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from 2025:KER:4392 WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

the petitioners as on 20.01.2025 is ₹17,14,173/- and the

overdue amount is ₹9,60,098/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the

petitioners have 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

petitioners. The petitioners have 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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹9,60,098/- in 15 consecutive and 2025:KER:4392 WP(C) NO.2077 of 2025

equal monthly installments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such installments shall be paid

on or before 20.02.2025.

(ii) If the petitioners commit default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue with

the coercive proceedings against the

petitioners in accordance with law.