Disposed

Reghuthaman v. the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024WP(C)/2767/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition against Union Bank's SARFAESI coercive recovery proceedings for an overdue term loan. The court disposed of it by directing payment of the overdue amount in three monthly instalments with current EMIs, coercive proceedings deferred unless the petitioner defaults.

What did the court decide?

Overdue amount of ₹92,575 to be paid in three equal monthly instalments from 11.04.2024; coercive proceedings deferred while payments made.

Reghuthaman Vs the Chief Manager and 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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2767 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

REGHUTHAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, KALALAYAM, PRAYIKARA MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690101

¶7

BY ADVS.
R.REJI
M.V.THAMBAN
THARA THAMBAN
B.BIPIN
ARUN BOSE
JEENA A.V.
THOMAS THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAVELIKKARA BRANCH, ALAKAPURI COMPLEX , MITCHEL JUNCTION MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101

¶10

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAKAPURI COMPLEX. MITCHEL JUNCTION, MAVELIKARA P.O MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690101

¶11

BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP, STANDING COUNSEL
SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2024

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

¶18

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Union Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶19

The Bank paid ₹2.5 lakhs to the petitioner as Term Loan in the year 2016. 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 the Flood occurred in the year 2018 and Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶22

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 Ext.P1 notice.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 2016. The

¶25

¶26

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶27

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶28

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

¶29

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 was 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 remit the overdue 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 to the Bank from the petitioner as on 23.01.2024 is ₹3,30,250/- and the overdue amount as on 11.03.2024 is ₹92,575/-

¶31

¶32

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶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 overdue amount of ₹92,575/- in three consecutive

¶38

and equal monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such instalments shall be paid

¶39

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶40

¶41

on or before 11.04.2024.

¶42

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

¶43

in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with

¶44

the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶45

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

¶46

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any,

¶47

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.2767 of 2024

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2767/2024

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
17.01.2024ISSUEDBYTHE1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.253/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA

Reghuthaman v. the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghuthaman v. the Chief Manager and 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs K. Meera

Rajesh K.T, Vs State of Kerala

Canara Bank, Arm Branch Vs Sub Registrar

Tyny Mathew Vs Meera. K. IAS

Sankesh K.M Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal - I

Vinitha P.B Vs Authorised Officer