Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 43960 OF 2023 PETITIONER: MOHAMMED SATHAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O KUNJUMOHAMED, CHALINGATTU HOUSE, AMANDOOR, ALA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680668 BY ADV MANSOOR ALI RESPONDENTS: 1 GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 60, THRISSUR REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALLIKULAM, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001 2 THE MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, S.N PURAM BRANCH S.N.PURAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680666 SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited to the petitioner, his wife and brother, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹12 lakhs to the petitioner and
others as Mortgage Loan 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 instalments promptly later due to financial difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. 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 instalments, 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 instalments. 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 the loan was given to the petitioner and others in the year
2015. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner, his
wife and brother and required them 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 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 overdue 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 15.01.2024 is ₹20,82,774/- and the
overdue amount as on 15.01.2024 is ₹11,78,387/-.
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 ₹3 lakhs within a period of one month from today and the balance overdue amount in eight consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(ii) If the petitioner commits single default
in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred. Sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE
spk APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43960/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 13-12-2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DIAGNOSTIC RESULT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.01.2024