Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3983 OF 2024 PETITIONER: RENISH E AGED 52 YEARS S/O. ASHOKAN, HARIPRIYA HOUSE, KALAIVANI ROAD, PARAKKAL, MUTTIL P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122 BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENT THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK GROUND FLOOR, CM MATHEW & BROTHERS ARCADE, CHAKKORATHKULAM, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 673006 SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Catholic Syrian 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 ₹24 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash
Credit in the year 2015. 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 due to unavoidable financial impediments. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the 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 petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and
required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately omitted to do so. The petitioner’s loan account was declared as NPA in the year 2020. 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 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 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 Bank from the petitioner as on 01.02.2024 is ₹20.72 lakhs.
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 ₹5 lakhs
within one month and the balance outstanding amount in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments immediately thereafter along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(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.
(iii) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3983/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 SARFAESI ACT) AND ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13(2) ON 21-5-2021. A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21-5-2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17-1- 2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER