Disposed

Saleesh M K v. the State Bank of India

Kerala HC20 May 2024WP(C)/9227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against State Bank of India's SARFAESI recovery proceedings over a defaulted 2006 housing loan. The Court granted the petitioner time to clear outstanding dues of ₹5,56,282 in ten equal monthly installments; on compliance coercive proceedings stand deferred, failing which they may continue.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to remit ₹5,56,282/- in 10 equal monthly installments from 20.06.2024 with interest/charges; coercive proceedings deferred if complied, resumable on default.

Saleesh M K Vs the State Bank of India — 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

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9227 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SALEESH M K
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O KUTTAPPAN M S,
RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS MADAPATTU HOUSE,
PALLISSERY P O, ARATTUPUZHA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680562

¶8

BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
VALLACHIRA BRANCH, P O VALLACHIRA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680562
2THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
CHIEF MANAGER (MAINTENANCE),
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RACPC, 1ST FLOOR,
STATE BANK BHAVAN, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM,
THIRUVAMBADI P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 680022

¶11

SRI.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.9227 Of 2023

¶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 State Bank of India 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 ₹4,11,000/- to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2006. 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 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.9227 Of 2023

¶20

¶21

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit 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.P1 notice.

¶22

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 installments. 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.

¶23

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

¶24

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

¶25

WP(C) No.9227 Of 2023

¶26

the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2006. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶27

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.

¶28

The Standing Counsel vehemently opposed grant of any relief to the petitioner. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 18.03.2024 is ₹5,56,282/- and the overdue amount as on 20.05.2024 is ₹4,65,000/-.

¶29

WP(C) No.9227 Of 2023

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding amount of ₹5,56,282/- in 10 consecutive and equal monthly installments along with accruing interest and other Bank

¶36

WP(C) No.9227 Of 2023

¶37

¶38

charges, if any. First of such installments shall be paid on or before 20.06.2024.

¶39

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

¶40

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

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) No.9227 Of 2023

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9227/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

ExhibitP1

¶48

A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED DATED 16.2.23 AT THE INSTANCE
OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

Saleesh M K v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleesh M K v. the State Bank of India

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

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

Mariyamu, Vs Tirur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Francis Abraham Vs State Bank of India