IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9872 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:

1 MANAF M.K., AGED 58 YEARS, SON OF SRI. KUNJAMMU, RESIDING AT MANEZHATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682502

2 JASMIN MANAF, AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF MANAF M.K., RESIDING AT MANEZHATH HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN – 682502 BY ADVS.

ANIL S.RAJ K.P.SHIBU K.N.RAJANI P.A.SULEKHA RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.

ANILA PETER SIMI S. ALI ARSHID.M.S.

BAHADUR SHAH ANAKKOT NASIRALI ASHNA T ASHIK RESPONDENT:

IDBI BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER RETAIL RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, IDBI BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI, PIN – 682036 BY ADV.SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2024 The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the IDBI Bank to the petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹77 lakhs to the petitioners as Term Loan in the year 2015. 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. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners to repay the outstanding 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.

4. The petitioners state that they are still in a position to clear the outstanding 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 petitioners, they will be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioners in the year 2015. The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.

6. 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 proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance outstanding 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 14.03.2024 is ₹81,62,149/-

and the overdue amount as on 14.03.2024 is ₹38,50,249/-.

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

9. 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 of the account occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners. The