Disposed

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

Kerala HC15 Dec 2023WP(C)/30094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under S. 34 of the SRAESA 2002, the Court disposed of a petition challenging coercive recovery proceedings by the Respondent Bank against the petitioner for a housing loan default. The Court granted a breathing space, directing payment of dues in instalments on pain of resuming proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to remit ₹5 lakhs by 30.12.2023 and clear balance dues in ten monthly installments; coercive proceedings deferred pending compliance.

Gineesh T K, Vs the General Manager… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 WP(C) NO. 30094 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

GINEESH T K, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SASIDHARAN @ KRISHNAN NAIR, THACHAPPILLIL (KEECHRIL) HOUSE, IRIPMANAM, THRIPPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM PIN – 682309.

¶7

BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.L.SREEKALA HARIDAS P.NAIR M.A.VINOD M.RAJESH KUMAR K.G.MANOJ KUMAR PRASOON.K.P ANU PRABHAKAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- PIN- 68203.

¶10

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THRIPUNITURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682309.

¶11

BY ADV N. RAGHURAJ

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶14

:2:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2023

¶17

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

¶18

The Bank paid ₹24 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the years 2015-'16. 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 certain financial stringencies. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶19

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶20

:3:

¶21

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.P2 and P4 notices.

¶22

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.

¶23

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

¶24

Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loan was given

¶25

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶26

:4:

¶27

to the petitioner in the years 2015-'16. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶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 P4 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 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

¶30

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶31

:5:

¶32

16.10.2023 is ₹43,72,012/- and the overdue amount as on 16.10.2023 is ₹25,89,790/-.

¶33

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

¶34

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 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall remit an amount of ₹5 lakhs on or before 30.12.2023.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶39

:6:

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance overdue amount in subsequent consecutive 10 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. (iii) 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.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments. (v) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶44

ams

¶45

W.P.(C) No.30094 of 2023

¶46

:7:

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30094/2023

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP (C) NO. 4762/2021 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT DATED 17.03.2021 IS

¶50

ExhibitP 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ON 09.02.2022 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS MC NO. 348 OF 2023 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT, (SPECIAL COURT FOR MP/MLA CASES); ERNAKULAM, DATED 16.06.2023

¶51

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 17.08.2023 IN MC NO. 348 OF 2023 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT, (SPECIAL COURT FOR MP/MLA CASES); ERNAKULAM,

¶52

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 11.09.2023

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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