Kerala High Court
Saidali V K vs The Ponnani Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd on 20 January, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:4163
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. 2117 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SAIDALI V K
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O KOYAMON, VADAKKEPURATH HOUSE,
VELIANKODE P.O,KARIMPULLU
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579
2 SEENATH
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SAIDALI VADAKKEPURATH HOUSE,
VELIANKODE P.O,KARIMPULLU
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679579
BY ADVS.
ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE
MEHNA IBRAHIM
RESPONDENTS:
THE PONNANI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
SABARISH KUMAR T, NO: M 372,
C V JUNCTION, PONNANI P O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
SHOBY K. FRANCIS.,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:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
2
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 petitioners, invoking the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹6 lakhs to the petitioners as
Mortgage Loan in the year 2020. 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 due to Covid-19
pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened
due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit
the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly
2025:KER:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
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 respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the
loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2020. The
petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
2025:KER:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
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
the petitioners as on 17.01.2025 is ₹10,85,190/- and the
overdue amount is ₹8,41,440/-.
2025:KER:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
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 ₹8,41,440/- in 12 consecutive and
equal monthly installments along with
accruing interest and other Bank charges, if
2025:KER:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
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
respondent will be at liberty to continue with
the coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioners make payments as
directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,
against the petitioners shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
2025:KER:4163
WP(C) NO.2117 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2117/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27/11/2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
6/09/2024 IN M.C NO. 1062/2024 FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE HON'BLE COURT
OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI
