IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 22960 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

CHANDRAHASA. K AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SUBBA BELCHAPPADA, SHRI MUTHAPPAN NIVASA, SHANTIMULE, KUBANOOR, PO BEKUR, KASARAGOD – 671322.

BY ADVS.

DEEPAK RAJ GOUTHAMI RESPONDENTS:

1 THE CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, T VYAPARI BHAVAN, MP VIII 654 A, NH-17, MAIN ROAD, MANJESWARAM KASARAGOD – 670301.

2 THE CANARA BANK VYAPARI BHAVAN, MP VIII 654 A, NH-17, MAIN ROAD, MANJESWARAM KASARAGOD – 670301.

BY ADVS.

GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Canara Bank to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹14 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2016 and a Mudra Loan of ₹2.5 lakhs in the year 2017. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advances, he could not pay the instalments promptly later due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loans fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit 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.P4 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 assets provided by the petitioner, he 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 petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2016 and 2017. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

6. 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.P4 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

7. 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 as on 27.06.2024 is ₹14,38,208/- and the overdue amount is ₹1,81,545/-.

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

9. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan accounts initially. The default in repayment occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial security which will s