Partly allowed

Renjith V.S. v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC4 Dec 2023WP(C)/8130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings by a Co-operative Bank. Granting the petitioners a restructured payment plan, the court allowed 30 monthly installments to clear outstanding dues and deferred coercive proceedings pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed repayment of ₹20,41,728/- in 15 initial monthly installments followed by 15 further installments with interest. Coercive proceedings deferred pending payment.

Renjith V.S. Vs the Authorised Officer — 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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8130 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1RENJITH V.S.
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, POONJAR
THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶7

2LEELAMMA CHACKO
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.RANJITH V.S., VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, POONJAR
THEKKEKARA P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶8

BY ADV M.V.RAJENDRAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.NO.4266, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O.,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686 582.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

 SHINU J.PILLAI
 S.SUJA
 MARIYA RAJAN
 AKHILESH A.K.
 LEKSHMI SUMUKHAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2023

¶18

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶19

The Bank paid ₹20 lakhs to the petitioners as Housing Loan in the year 2017. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment installments promptly later as the financial condition became worse due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶22

to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶23

Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners 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.

¶24

The petitioners state that they are still in a position

¶25

to clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time is given to clear the dues in easy monthly installments. If the respondent is permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶26

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶29

petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2017. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

¶30

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately omitted to do so. The loan account was declared as NPA. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioners 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 petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶31

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

¶32

the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance outstanding amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted

¶33

¶34

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶35

to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioners as on 04.12.2023 is ₹20,41,728/-.

¶36

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

¶37

The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners have provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

¶38

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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

¶39

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

¶40

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶41

¶42

(i) The petitioners shall remit the outstanding amount of ₹20,41,728/- in 15 consecutive and equal monthly installments. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 04.01.2024.

¶43

(ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 14 equal monthly installments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

¶44

(iii) If the petitioners commit any default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶45

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶46

¶47

(iv) If the petitioners make payments as

¶48

directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

¶49

against the petitioners shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.8130 of 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8130/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 08/03/2022.

¶59

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶60

Exhibit R1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN
THE HINDU NEWSPAPER DATED 12.03.2022
Exhibit R1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER DATED
13.03.2022

Renjith V.S. v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith V.S. v. the Authorised 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

Muhammed Ashraf, Vs State Bank of India

Abdul Rahim.v., Vs State Bank of India

Aneesh Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Rehna Muhammed Salih Vs the Village Officer

Muhammed Ali Jawahar Vs the Special Sale Officer

Anil Thomas Vs the Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. (Erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ld