Disposed

Erumakkattuparambil Beena Franco v. South Indian Bank

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024WP(C)/2259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrowers facing SARFAESI recovery proceedings on an agricultural loan default sought time to repay in instalments. The Bank agreed to grant breathing time if a substantial payment was made. The writ petition was disposed of directing an upfront payment of ₹40 lakhs and balance in twelve monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay ₹40 lakhs by 25.03.2024 and balance in 12 monthly instalments; coercive proceedings deferred if paid, resumed if defaulted.

Erumakkattuparambil Beena Franco Vs South Indian Bank — 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 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2259 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 ERUMAKKATTUPARAMBIL BEENA FRANCO AGED 65 YEARS

¶7

W/O ERUMAKKATTUPARAMBIL FRANCO POULOSE ERUMAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE KALPARAMBU, POOMANGALAM, ARIPALAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680688.

¶8

2 ERUMAKKATTUPARAMBIL FRANCO POULOSE AGED 72 YEARS S/O.POULOSE ERUMAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE KALPARAMBU, POOMANGALAM, ARIPALAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680688.

¶9

BY ADVS. M.BAIJU NOEL T.S.LIKHITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

SOUTH INDIAN BANK REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE IRINJALAKKUDA VI/950-B, CHRIST NAGAR, AKP JUNCTION, IRINJALAKKUDA NORTH, KERALA, PIN – 680125.

¶12

BY ADVS. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE P.V.PARVATHY REENA THOMAS NIGI GEORGE ANANTHU V.LAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶15

:2:

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2024

¶18

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the South Indian 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 ₹1.60 Crore to the petitioners as Agricultural 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

¶20

not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to

¶21

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶22

:3:

¶23

Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶24

Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners 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 Ext.P1 notice invoking Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶25

The petitioners state that they are still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if

¶26

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶27

:4:

¶28

sufficient time is given 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 petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶29

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the 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. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioners

¶31

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

¶32

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶33

:5:

¶34

Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Ext.P1 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶35

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if

¶36

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 to the petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioners as on 03.03.2024 is ₹2,38,37,170.65.

¶37

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

¶38

The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been making the repayment and

¶39

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶40

:6:

¶41

maintaining the loan account initially. The default in repayment 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.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

¶43

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

¶44

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

¶45

following directions:

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall remit an amount

¶47

of ₹40 lakhs on or before 25.03.2024.

¶48

(ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance outstanding amount in subsequent consecutive 12 equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and

¶49

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶50

other Bank charges, if any.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶53

ams

¶54

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2024

¶55

:8:

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2259/2024

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit -P1

¶59

TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 07-12-2023 UNDER SECTION 13(4) SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS

Erumakkattuparambil Beena Franco v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erumakkattuparambil Beena Franco v. South Indian Bank

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

Sk Metal Crushers and Quarry Pvt. Ltd., Vs M. S. Rajkumar

Abdul Rahman Mohammed Yaqoob Vs State Bank of India

Jerit John Abraham Vs Safna Nazarudeen, IAS

Lenin Kumar, Vs Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank

Anas .a Vs the Branch Manager

Sreekala Vs the Authorized Officer