Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36451 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ABDUL RASHEED. V.V, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED VADAKKUVVETTUL HOUSE KODIYATHOOR.P.O KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602 BY ADVS. SHARAN SHAHIER RAKHY BABY ITTY PAULSON TREESA SHAJI STEPHY MARY SAJI RESPONDENTS:
1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CUM SPECIAL SALES OFFICER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (FORMER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD), P.B.NO.503,CHALAPPURAM.P.O KOZHIKODE - 673003 2 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (FORMER KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD),P.B.NO.503,CHALAPPURAM.P.O KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 673003 SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2023 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative 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 ₹3,60,000/- to the petitioner as
Business Loan in the year 2013. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. 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
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 2nd respondent-Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Bank, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year
2013. 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 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 submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 31.10.2023 is ₹8,98,499/-.
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 the entire outstanding amount of ₹8,98,499/- in ten equal and consecutive monthly installments. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 11.12.2023.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive nine equal monthly installments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioner commits any default in
making payments as directed above, the 2nd respondent-Bank will be at liberty to continue with the 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
spk APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36451/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE UNDER CMP 1291/2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 10.10.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK