Disposed

Anil Ram v. the Authorized Officer

Kerala HC11 Jan 2024WP(C)/301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower aggrieved by coercive SARFAEI recovery proceedings after defaulting on two agricultural loans sought time to clear arrears. Bank agreed to breathing time if substantial payment was made. Court disposed the petition directing repayment of overdue amount in six monthly instalments, deferring coercive proceedings on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Overdue ₹1,54,000 to be remitted in six monthly instalments with interest; coercive proceedings deferred while payments continue; Bank free to resume on default.

Anil Ram 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

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 301 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANIL RAM AGED 44 YEARS, S/O KUNJUKUNJU, PATHIPARAMBIL, AYAMKUDY P.O., KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686613.

¶8

BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK, AYAMKUDY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, AYAMKUDY-KADUTHURUTHY ROAD, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686613.

¶11

BY ADVS. K.MADHUSOODANAN MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU) SYRIAC JOSEPH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶14

:2:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2024

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Kerala Gramin Bank to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶18

The petitioner had availed two loans for ₹6.5 lakhs as Agricultural Loan in the year 2017. 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 financial constraints. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶21

:3:

¶22

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

¶24

clear the overdue amounts towards the loan, if 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 petitioner, he will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶25

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶26

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶27

:4:

¶28

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 Ext.P1 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶29

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is 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 petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 09.01.2024 is ₹9,34,000/- and the overdue amount as on 09.01.2024 is ₹1,54,000/-.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶31

:5:

¶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. The petitioner has provided substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

¶37

amount of ₹1,54,000/- in six equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

¶38

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶39

:6:

¶40

any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 12.02.2024.

¶41

(ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶42

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

¶43

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred. (v) After paying entire outstanding dues, the petitioner may approach the Bank for regularisation of loan accounts.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C)No.301 of 2024

¶49

:7: