John P Abraham vs The Authorized Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 164 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 164 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2025

Kerala High Court

John P Abraham vs The Authorized Officer on 13 May, 2025

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                              2025:KER:33825




        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. 17284 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         JOHN P ABRAHAM,
         AGED 64 YEARS
         S/O PURATHIKATTIL MATHEW JOHN,
         PURATHIKATTIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O.,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664

         BY ADV
         SRI.M.R.SASITH


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD,
         ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR,
         FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2    THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
         LCRD, ERNAKULAM DIVISION,
         GROUND FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
         MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         PIN - 682031
                                             2025:KER:33825
WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

                             2


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY,STANDING COUNSEL
          SREEJITH K.(K/380/2005)



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:33825
WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

                                  3



                             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 2nd 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 ₹50 lakhs to the petitioner as 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 repayment

installments promptly later. The repayment of loan fell into

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

petitioner.

2025:KER:33825 WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

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 Ext.P1 notice.

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

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 2025:KER:33825 WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

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

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

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 2025:KER:33825 WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from

the petitioner as on 09.05.2025 is ₹1,25,65,965/-.

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 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.

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 ₹25 lakhs on

or before 30.05.2025 and the balance 2025:KER:33825 WP(C) NO.17284 of 2025

outstanding amount in ten consecutive and

equal monthly instalments immediately

thereafter along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.