Allowed

Sindhu M.P v. the Kerala Bank New Mahe Branch

Kerala HC15 Jan 2024WP(C)/816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the Kerala High Court challenging coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank for recovery of an outstanding loan advanced under the SFR Act, 2002. The Court directed the petitioner to pay the dues in monthly instalments. If the petitioner fails to make payment, the Bank is at liberty to continue the coercive proceedings, otherwise the proceedings will stand deferred.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit the said amount in 12 equal monthly instalments. If she fails to pay, coercive proceedings can be continued. If she pays, coercive proceedings shall stand deferred.

Sindhu M.P Vs the Kerala Bank New Mahe Branch — 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 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 816 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SINDHU M.P AGED 49 YEARS, W/O VASU , KOTTAKUNIYILTHAZHE ," MAINAKAM " PERINGADI, NEW MAHE , THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DT.,PIN – 673312.

¶8

BY ADVS. M.R.REENA P.S.SUJETH

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE KERALA BANK NEW MAHE BRANCH REP BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE KANNUR P.B.NO.35, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN – 670001.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024

¶14

:2:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2024

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved

¶18

by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Kerala 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 ₹10 lakhs to the petitioner as Term

¶20

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 instalments 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.

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024

¶23

:3:

¶24

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 Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024

¶28

:4:

¶29

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 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 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 is ₹9,02,208/- and the overdue amount as on 10.01.2024 is

¶32

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024

¶33

:5:

¶34

₹4,30,185/-.

¶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

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹4,30,185/- in 12 equal consecutive

¶41

monthly instalments along with accruing interest

¶42

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024

¶43

:6:

¶44

and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.02.2024.

¶45

(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.

¶46

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

¶47

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶50

ams

¶51

W.P.(C)No.816 of 2024