Disposed

Anumod.N v. Authorized Officer

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024WP(C)/994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached this Court challenging coercive proceedings for recovery of a bank term loan due to pandemic-induced defaults. The court granted a breathing time to remit dues in monthly installments, allowing coercion to be deferred if payments are made. Provision made for continuing proceedings on default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to remit overdue amount in 10 equal monthly installments with first installment by 27.03.2024. Coercive proceedings deferred upon compliance.

Anumod.N Vs 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 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 994 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 ANUMOD.N AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANAN, KALARICKALTHARA HOUSE, PULINCHUVADU, VAIKOM, VAIKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM – 686141.

¶7

2 BEENA

¶8

AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. ANUMOD.N, KALARICKALTHARA HOUSE, PULINCHUVADU, VAIKOM, VAIKOM.P.O, KOTTAYAM – 686141.

¶9

BY ADVS. A.ARUNKUMAR S.SHYAM KUMAR SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 AUTHORIZED OFFICER VAIKOM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, VAIKOM, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686141.

¶12

2 VAIKOM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1193 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE, VAIKOM, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM – 686141.

¶13

BY ADVS. JULIAN XAVIER.J JOSEPH FIROZ K.ROBIN ROY JOSEPH ANIES MATHEW NIRMAL KURIEN EAPEN

¶14

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶15

:2:

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶18

:3:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2024

¶21

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Vaikom Urban Co-operative Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶22

The Bank paid ₹15 lakhs to the petitioners as Term Loan in the year 2019. The petitioners state that though the petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, they could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to

¶23

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶24

:4:

¶25

Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears.

¶26

It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶27

Though the petitioners requested the Bank to

¶28

permit the petitioners 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.P2 notice.

¶29

The petitioners state that they are 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 respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured

¶30

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶31

assets provided by the petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶32

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2019. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

¶33

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioners invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The impugned Ext.P2 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive

¶34

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶35

:6:

¶36

proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶37

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioners as on 16.02.2024 is ₹16,71,316/and the overdue amount as on 14.03.2024 is ₹6,24,621/-.

¶38

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

¶39

The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in repayment occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners. The petitioners have provided

¶40

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶41

:7:

¶42

substantial security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

¶43

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 petitioners to clear off the liability.

¶44

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

¶45

following directions:

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall remit the

¶47

overdue amount of ₹6,24,621/- in 10 equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 27.03.2024.

¶48

(ii) If the petitioners commit default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue

¶49

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶50

:8:

¶51

with coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶52

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

¶53

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

Sd/- N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C) No.994 of 2024

¶58

:9:

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 994/2024

¶60

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22-11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2612-2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

Anumod.N v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anumod.N v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Yenfor Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Divya Vs the Manager

Induvalsan K C, Vs P N B Housing Finance Ltd.

Unnikrishnan. M670 Vs Kerala Gramin Bank

Elen Elza Joy Vs Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary

Jomon Varghese Vs Regional Passport Officer