2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6828
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
VINEETH – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent
WP(C) 4590/2024
The court balanced the rights of the bank to recover the overdue amounts with the petitioner's request for reasonable time and instalments for repayment.
Headnote:
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Coercive Proceedings - Financial Advance
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner received a housing loan from the bank but fell into arrears due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The bank initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of the overdue amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to remit the overdue amount in three equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other bank charges, with the option for the bank to continue coercive proceedings if the petitioner defaults.
Issues: Coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance, default in loan repayment, petitioner's request for easy monthly instalments, and the bank's refusal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's reasons for default, the bank's refusal to permit easy monthly instalments, and the petitioner's ability to clear the overdue amounts in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to remit the overdue amount in instalments, with the option for the bank to continue coercive proceedings if the petitioner defaults.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 20th day of February, 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 ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2021. 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 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.
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.P1 notice invoking Section 13 (2) of the , 2002.
4. 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 instalments.
If the respondent is 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 respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the petitioner in the year 2021. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
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.P1 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 is ₹6,30,075/- and the overdue amount as on 06.02.2024 is ₹1,07,631/-.
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 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.
10. 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. 11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of ₹1,07,631/- in three equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 20.03.2024.
(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.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(iv) If the petition