Disposed

Mariyamu, v. Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC20 May 2024WP(C)/30105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower sought time to clear overdue co-operative bank mortgage loan after default during Covid-19. Court directed payment of outstanding amount of ₹11,84,845/- in ten equal monthly installments; coercive proceedings deferred if payments made, Bank free to proceed on any single default.

What did the court decide?

Payment of ₹11,84,845/- in 10 equal monthly installments from 20.06.2024 with interest/charges; coercive proceedings deferred on compliance.

Mariyamu, Vs Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — 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 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30105 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MARIYAMU,
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O ALAVI, PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
JAARAMPADI,IRINGAVOOR (POST),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676103

¶7

BY ADVS.
M.ANUROOP
M.DEVESH
MURSHID ALI M.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, H.O. TIRUR, TIRUR PO, PIN - 676101

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, H.O. TIRUR, TIRUR PO, PIN - 676101

¶11

3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, LOAN RECOVERY CELL, TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, H.O.TIRUR, TIRUR.P. O, PIN – 676101

¶12

BY ADV M.SASINDRAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023
 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2024

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Tirur Urban Co-operative Bank 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 ₹13,50,000/- to the petitioner as Mortgage Loan in the year 2017. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment installments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶19

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit

¶22

the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly installments, 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.P3 notice.

¶23

The petitioner states that she 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 installments. If the respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶24

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

¶25

the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that

¶26

the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The

¶27

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶30

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required her 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.P3 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶31

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the outstanding 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 20.05.2024 is ₹11,84,845/-.

¶32

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

¶35

Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding amount of ₹11,84,845/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. First of such installments

¶40

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

shall be paid on or before 20.06.2024.

¶43

(ii) If the petitioner commits single default

¶44

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

¶45

the coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶46

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

¶47

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶48

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.30105 OF 2023

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30105/2023

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2022
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF AN
AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- DEPOSITED BY
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTICE
DATED 01.09.2023 IN CRL.M.P.977/2021ON
THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, MANJERI

Mariyamu, v. Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamu, v. Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Nijo Varghese Vs the Transport Commissioner

Emily Chacko Vs Reserve Bank of India

Biju Chacko, Vs the Authorised Officer

Saleesh M K Vs the State Bank of India

Mascom Steel (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Francis Abraham Vs State Bank of India