Disposed

K.K.Manoj v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC10 Jan 2024WP(C)/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged coercive proceedings for loan recovery. The Court granted a short breathing time, allowing the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount in ten monthly installments subject to the condition that failure to pay any installment would permit the Bank to resume coercive proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remit outstanding amount of ₹16,91,355/- in 10 equal monthly installments; coercive proceedings deferred subject to compliance.

K.K.Manoj Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024/20TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 128 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.K.MANOJ

¶7

AGED 53 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN NAIR,
KIDANGATTU HOUSE, ALANADU P.O., PALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 575.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

MANOJ RAMASWAMY
JOLIMA GEORGE
C.B.SABEELA
APARNA G.
MUHAMMED HAROON THAMEEM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CANARA BANK, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM,
PIN – 686 001.

¶12

2THE BRANCH MANAGER
CANARA BANK, PALA MAIN BRANCH,
LALAM JUNCTION, PALA, KOTTAYAM,
PIN – 686 575.

¶13

BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 10 day of January, 2024

¶19

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 Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶20

The Bank paid ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2015. 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. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later due to ill-health of the petitioner and his wife. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶21

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy

¶22

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

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 notice.

¶25

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.

¶26

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2015. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

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.P1 and P2 were issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶30

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 08.01.2024 is 16,91,355/-. ₹

¶31

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶32

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶34

: 5 :

¶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 loan 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 his liability.

¶37

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

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding amount of 16,91,355/- in 10₹ equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

¶39

(ii) First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 12.02.2024.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

(iii) If the petitioner commits single 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.

¶43

(iv) If the petitioner pays the instalments as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶44

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶45

AMR

¶46

W.P.(C) No.128 of 2024

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 128/2024

¶49

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶50

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `03.02.2022 ISSU` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE NOTICE DATED` `ED BY THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `07.07.2023 ISSU` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE NOTICE DATED` `ED BY THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `21.12.2023 SUBMITT` `BEFORE THE BANK.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER`

K.K.Manoj v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Manoj v. the 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

Suresh Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank (Kerala Bank)

Anilkumar Ayyappan Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager[ Sanctions]

Karuppayya Vs the Authorized Officer

Ajas T Vs Kerala Bank,Represented by Its Authorized Officer

Alex John Prasad Vs Union of India

Prince Mathew Vs the Kerala State Co. Operative Bank