Disposed

Reji Augustine., v. the Manager

Kerala HC27 May 2024WP(C)/13417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrowers challenged SARFAESI coercive recovery proceedings by Kerala State Co-operative Bank after loan arrears. The Court allowed repayment of the total overdue amount of ₹31,55,167 in 18 monthly instalments with current EMIs; on compliance coercive proceedings stand deferred, failing which the Bank may resume them.

What did the court decide?

Repayment of ₹31,55,167 overdue in 18 equal monthly instalments with interest and charges, plus current EMIs; coercive proceedings deferred during compliance.

Reji Augustine., Vs the Manager — 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

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13417 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1REJI AUGUSTINE.,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O AUGUSTINE,
KANJIRAPILLIL HOUSE, KURINJI P.O. ,
RAMAPUARAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.686576

¶7

NOW RESIDING AT: 43 KILKENNY ST, CASTLECOMER,
CO KILKENNY, R95 D3T2, IRELAND.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:

¶8

SHINTO V. JOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O V. M. JOSE,
6/321, VEETTICKAL NIRAPPEL HOUSE ,
EZHACHERRY P. O. , VELLILAPPILLY
VILLAGE ,RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM,
KERALA -686 651.

¶9

2ANNAKUTTY AUGUSTINE.,
AGED 70 YEARS, W/O AUGUSTINE,
KANJIRAPILLIL HOUSE, KURINJI P.O. ,
RAMAPUARAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.,
PIN – 686 576.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SAQIB RIZWAN
AMRUTHA P S
JERIN JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1THE MANAGER,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
KOTTAYAM REGIONAL OFFICE , P.B. NO. 140,
CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, KERALA,
PIN – 686 001.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

2AUTHORIZED OFFICER.,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
KOTTAYAM REGIONAL OFFICE , P.B. NO. 140,
CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, KERALA,
PIN – 686 001.

¶17

BY ADV

¶18

ATHUL SHAJI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2024

¶24

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

¶25

The Bank paid 20 lakhs towards Housing Loan₹ and 5 lakhs towards Ordinary Loan to the petitioners in the₹ years 2013 and 2016. 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 instalments promptly later. The repayment of loans fell into arrears later due to Covid-19 pandemic. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶26

Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly

¶27

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

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.P4 and P5 notices.

¶30

The petitioners state that they are still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶31

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loans were given to the petitioners in the years 2013 and 2016. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

¶32

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately

¶33

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

omitted to do so. 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 Exts.P4 and P5 were issued in these circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶36

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount towards Ordinary Loan due to the Bank from the petitioners is ₹8,48,064/- and the overdue amount as on 27.05.2024 is ₹7,39,668/- and the outstanding amount towards Housing Loan due to the Bank from the petitioners is ₹33,77,566/- and the overdue amount as on 27.05.2024 is 24,15,499/-. ₹

¶37

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶38

: 6 :

¶39

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

¶40

The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been making the repayment and maintaining the loan accounts initially. The default in repayment of the loan accounts 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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

(i) The petitioners shall remit the total overdue amount of ₹31,55,167/(₹7,39,668/- + 24,15,499/-)₹ in 18 equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid on

¶44

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

or before 27.06.2024.

¶47

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

¶48

(iii) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

¶49

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

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

AMR

W.P.(C) No.13417 of 2023

¶55

: 8 :

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13417/2023

¶57

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM KERALA
STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD DATED
02.11.2022.

¶59

Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FROM KERALA
STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD DATED
02.11.2022.
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 23.02.2023.
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 20.03.2023.
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 20.03.2023.

Reji Augustine., v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Augustine., v. the Manager

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

Sherly Mohan Mathew, Represented by Power of Attorney Holder Joseph Francis Vs K. Meera IAS

Thomas John Muthoot Vs K.Meera, IAS

Jessy Siby, Vs Sri. Vishnu Raj. IAS

Philip T. Peeliyani Vs Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Karukachal Branch

City Vision Vs the Executive Engineer

M/S. Kannileth Cable Tv Network, Represented by Its Proprietor C.T. Samuel Vs Kerala State Electricity Board