Allowed

Manoj K.M. v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC8 Dec 2023WP(C)/8669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a borrower against coercive recovery proceedings initiated by State Bank of India under the SFAESA. The Court directed the petitioner to clear the outstanding dues in 15 monthly instalments. Coercive proceedings stand deferred on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to remit outstanding amount of ₹37,45,854 in 15 equal monthly instalments with interest; coercive proceedings deferred upon compliance.

Manoj K.M. Vs State Bank of India — 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 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8669 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ K.M. AGED 47 YEARS KOTTAKUNNATH HOUSE, CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O., KARUKAPUTHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679535.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN

¶10

K.R.SRIPATHI

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, RASMEC, APP. NSS KPT HIGH SCHOOL, T.B. ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679101.

¶13

BY ADV AMAL GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶16

:2:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2023

¶19

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

¶20

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶21

The Bank paid ₹30 lakhs to the petitioner as Home

¶22

Loan in the year 2020. 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 loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons

¶23

beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶25

:3:

¶26

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

¶27

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and issued Ext.P1 notice.

¶28

The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear

¶29

the overdue amounts towards the loan, if sufficient time is given

¶30

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.

¶31

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶34

:4:

¶35

the petitioner in the year 2020. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶36

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 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶39

:5:

¶40

06.12.2023 is ₹37,45,854/-.

¶41

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

¶42

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶43

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.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

¶45

inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off the liability.

¶46

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

¶47

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding

¶48

amount of ₹37,45,854/- in 15 equal and

¶49

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶50

:6:

¶51

consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 08.01.2024.

¶52

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will

¶53

be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶57

ams

¶58

W.P.(C) No.8669 of 2023

¶59

:7:

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8669/2023

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 20.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

Manoj K.M. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj K.M. 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

Ciciya Johnson @ Sruthy, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Ajimon L, Vs Icici Banklimited

Khader.T.K, Vs the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Vaniyamkulam Branch

Dr. N.K. Viswanathan Vs Sugadhakumar

Vijayan.M.S Vs Ms. D Dharmalashri, IAS

Kamalam @ Kamalamma Vs Debaprasad Sahoo