Sheeja N vs The Kerala State Financial Enterprises ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 157 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 157 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2025

Kerala High Court

Sheeja N vs The Kerala State Financial Enterprises ... on 13 May, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

         TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 16555 OF 2025

PETITIONER(S):

             SHEEJA N.
             AGED 49 YEARS
             W/O.NAZEER, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
             MANGALAPURAM, THONNAKKAL P.O., MELTHONNAKKAL,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695317

             BY ADVS.
             B.KRISHNA MANI
             N.V.SANDHYA
             DHANUJA M.S
RESPONDENT(S):

     1       THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,
             REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, MANGALAPURAM BRANCH,
             THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695317

     2       THE MANAGER (RECOVERY)
             THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGISTERED
             OFFICE, BHADRATHA P.B.NO.510 MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 680020


             BY ADV. ANCHALA C


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.05.2025,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025
                                 2


                                                     2025:KER:33814

                         JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of May, 2025

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made

by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. to the petitioner,

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The respondents paid ₹ 4,00,000/- to the petitioner as

personal Loan in the year 2020. The petitioner states that though

the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial

repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the

instalments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell into arrears.

It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the respondents to

permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy

monthly instalments, the respondents were not yielding. The WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025

2025:KER:33814

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.P6

notice.

4. The petitioner states that she 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 instalments. If the

respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive

proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the

petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

respondents 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 2020. The petitioner committed

default in repaying the loan.

6. The respondents repeatedly reminded the petitioner

and required her to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025

2025:KER:33814

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the respondents 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.P6 was issued in these circumstances. The

petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the

coercive proceedings initiated by the respondents.

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 respondents from the petitioner as

on 22.04.2025 is ₹ 3,34,344/-.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025

2025:KER:33814

initially. The default in repayment occurred lately due to reasons

beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has provided

substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the

respondents.

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

₹50,000/- within a period of one month from

today.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive

ten equal monthly instalments thereafter, along

with accruing interest and other administrative

charges, if any.

WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025

2025:KER:33814

(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 makes payments as

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE DM WP(C) NO.16555 OF 2025