Disposed

Muraleedharan. K v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC8 Apr 2024WP(C)/1442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower sought relief from coercive SARFAESI recovery proceedings by the Federal Bank after defaulting on loans taken between 2017 and 2021. The court disposed of the writ petition directing repayment of ₹18,61,000 in ten equal monthly instalments, deferring coercive proceedings if payments are made as directed.

What did the court decide?

Outstanding ₹18,61,000/- to be paid in 10 equal consecutive monthly instalments with interest; first instalment by 08.05.2024; coercive proceedings deferred during compliance.

Muraleedharan. K 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1442 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MURALEEDHARAN. K
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O MR. KRISHNAN @
K. KRISHNAN MASTER , KARUVARATHODI HOUSE,
PANAYUR KOTTA, PANAYUR VILLAGE ,
VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN – 679522.

¶7

BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ,
LCRD PALAKKAD DIVISION,
LAKSHMI COMPLEX, KALMANDAPAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678001.

¶10

2THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VANIYAMKULAM
BRANCH , K.T. COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD MAIN ROAD, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679522.

¶11

BY ADVS.
Mohan Jacob George
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)(K/000036/1991)
REENA THOMAS(R-364)
NIGI GEORGE(K/1169/2012)
ANANTHU V.LAL(K/001233/2022)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2024

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Federal 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 ₹15 lakhs as Cash Credit and 5₹ lakhs as Federal Prathyasa Loan in the year 2017, 3 lakhs₹ as GECL in the year 2020 and 61,000/- as Term Loan in₹ the year 2021 to the petitioner. 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 loans fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶19

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

¶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.P1 and P2 notices invoking Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002.

¶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 Bank and denied all the statements made by the

¶24

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2017, 2020 and 2021. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

¶27

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

¶28

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to remit the balance outstanding amount in instalments, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due

¶29

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

to the Bank from the petitioner as on 08.04.2024 is ₹18,61,000/-.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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 the outstanding amount of ₹18,61,000/- in 10 equal and consecutive monthly instalments, along with accruing interest and other Bank

¶38

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 08.05.2024.

¶41

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

¶42

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

ACR

W.P.(C) No.1442/2024

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1442/2024

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE
(SARFAESI), ACT 2002, DATED 14.06.23.
Exhibit -P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT , UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF
THE (SARFAESI), ACT 2002, DATED
12.12.23.

Muraleedharan. K v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan. K 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

Cochin Social and Educational Charitable Trust, Represented by Its Secretary Vs Ms. Meera K

Raphy Antony Vs K.Vishnuraj

Arash Meenakshi Envirocare Private Limited Vs M.Babu Abdul Khadeer

Sanila Sukumar Vs the Authorised Officer and Chief Manger

We One Enterprises Rep by Its Managing Partner Mr a R Saseedharan Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Jithin Mohanan Vs the Regional Transport Officer (Rto)