Disposed

Jafar Sadique Thangal, v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC15 Dec 2023WP(C)/19984/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging coercive recovery proceedings under the SARM Act. Balancing the debtor's hardship with the bank's rights, the Court directed the petitioner to pay ₹5 lakhs immediately and clear the balance by March 2024 to defer auctions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit ₹5 lakhs by 30.12.2023 and balance by 31.03.2024; coercive proceedings deferred upon compliance.

Jafar Sadique Thangal, Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 19984 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JAFAR SADIQUE THANGAL, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O POOKOYA THANGAL, THANGE KANDIYIL HOUSE,
NARIKKOTTUMCHAL, KARANDODE P O,
KUTTIADI, KOZHIKODE-673508.

¶7

BY ADV E.V.MOLY

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE BANK OF INDIA
ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH,
40/947, 1ST FLOOR, R S BUILDING,
METRO PILLAR NO.697,
OPPOSITE MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND,
M G ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶10

BY ADV S.EASWARAN

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2023

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the State Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶17

The Bank paid ₹21 lakhs to the petitioner as Over Draft facility in the year 2014. 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 Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶18

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit

¶19

the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶22

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 Exts.P2 and P3 notices.

¶23

The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the advance, if sufficient

¶24

time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly instalments. 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.

¶25

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2014. The petitioner committed default in maintaining the advance.

¶26

¶27

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶28

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 Exts.P2 and P3 were issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶29

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

¶30

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 12.12.2023 is 33,27,075/-.₹

¶31

¶32

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶33

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

¶34

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶35

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 advance 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of

¶39

₹5 lakhs by 30.12.2023.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

¶41

outstanding amount on or before 31.03.2024.

¶42

¶43

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶44

(iii) If the petitioner commits any default in

¶45

making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with

¶46

the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶47

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶48

(v) The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Bank for availing OTS in the meanwhile, without violating the payment schedule as directed above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.19984 of 2022

¶54

¶55

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION SALE
NOTICE DATED 21.05.2022 RECEIVED BY
THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 30.05.2022.

Jafar Sadique Thangal, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Sadique Thangal, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leela Kumaran, Vs Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

The President, Managing Committee Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Shafi Adattil, Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Veena Prakash, Vs Indian Bank Represented by Its Manager

Aisha Rani Siyad Vs Canara Bank, Represented by Its Authorized Officer

Gineesh T K, Vs the General Manager, Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.