Disposed

Beena v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC11 Jun 2024WP(C)/7118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower sought relief from coercive SARFAESI recovery proceedings by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank over an unpaid ₹5 lakh loan, offering to clear arrears in instalments. The court disposed of the writ petition directing payment of overdue and current EMIs by a fixed date, with coercive proceedings deferred on compliance.

What did the court decide?

Time till 29.06.2024 to remit overdue amount of Rs.15,384/- plus current EMIs; coercive proceedings deferred if paid.

Beena Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7118 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BEENA

¶8

AGED 53 YEARS
W/O GANGADHARAN, KURUMBARUKANDY HOUSE
KANNADIPOYIL, BALUSSERI, KOZHIKODE., PIN – 673612

¶9

BY ADVS.
S.MUMTAZ
ALISHA ASLAM
AMINA RUBY FAIZAL

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
REP BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
RECOVERY SECTION, PB NO. 503, KALLAYI ROAD,
CHALAPPURAM PO, KOZHIKODE., PIN – 673002

¶12

SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2024

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank 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 ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as Ordinary Loan in the year 2019. 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 instalments promptly later due to financial stringency. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶22

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit

¶23

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.

¶24

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 instalments. If the respondent is 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.

¶25

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶29

loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The 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.P1 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 remit the entire overdue amount, 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

¶32

¶33

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶34

petitioner as on 11.06.2024 is ₹4,83,685/- and the overdue amount as on 11.06.2024 is ₹15,384/-.

¶35

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the 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 entire overdue amount of 15,384/- on or before₹

¶40

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶41

¶42

29.06.2024.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.7118 of 2024

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7118/2024

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF POSSESSION
DATED 12/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK.

Beena v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena v. Kerala State Co-Operative 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

Sulfia.S Vs M/S.Indusind Bank Ltd.

Biju Thomas. P Vs 1. the Authorized Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

V.P. Joy Vs the Authorized Officer Under Sarfsi Act

V.S. Timber Industries, Vs the Canara Bank Limited, Having Is Head Office at NO.112

M/S. Lichen Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Bank

Jose T v Vs South Indian Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Branch Manager, Pariyaram Branch, Church Ro