Allowed

Aisha Rani Siyad v. Canara Bank, Represented by Its Authorized Officer

Kerala HC15 Dec 2023WP(C)/29253/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed against a bank's coercive foreclosure proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court directed the petitioner to clear dues over 12 months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay outstanding dues in 12 monthly installments; coercive proceedings deferred pending compliance; liberty to bank to continue proceedings on default.

Aisha Rani Siyad Vs Canara Bank, Represented by Its… — 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 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 29253 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AISHA RANI SIYAD AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SIYAD T. A. THOPPIL HOUSE, SRM ROAD,

¶8

DR. PALPU LANE, KOCHI – 682017.

¶9

BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM TOM E. JACOB REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER I FLOOR ANJIPARAMBIL COMPLEX 34/368 B, NEAR PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE KOCHI,

¶12

M. G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682016.

¶13

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CANARA BANK, I FLOOR ANJIPARAMBIL COMPLEX 34/368 B, NEAR PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE KOCHI, M. G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682016.

¶14

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK, I FLOOR ANJIPARAMBIL COMPLEX 34/368 B, NEAR PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE KOCHI, M. G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682016.

¶15

BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶18

:2:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2023

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Canara Bank to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶22

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶23

The Bank paid ₹60 lakhs to the petitioner as Overdraft

¶24

Loan in the year 2017. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶26

:3:

¶27

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 Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

¶28

The petitioner states that she 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, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶29

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

¶30

Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the overdraft facility

¶31

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶32

:4:

¶33

was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The petitioner committed default in maintaining the overdraft facility.

¶34

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required her 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.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.

¶35

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

¶36

to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on

¶37

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶38

:5:

¶39

30.11.2023 is ₹65,34,712/-.

¶40

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶41

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶42

has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in maintenance of the overdraft account 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding

¶46

amount of ₹65,34,712/- in 12 equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with

¶47

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶48

:6:

¶49

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be made on or before 15.01.2024.

¶50

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶54

ams

¶55

W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2023

¶56

:7:

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29253/2023

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 05.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RULES 8 (6) & 9 OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 30.12.2017 ISSUED IN THE NAME SIYAD P.A-THE BORROWER

Aisha Rani Siyad v. Canara Bank, Represented by Its Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aisha Rani Siyad v. Canara Bank, Represented by Its Authorized Officer

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.

Jafar Sadique Thangal, Vs State Bank of India

Veena Prakash, Vs Indian Bank Represented by Its Manager

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