SHAFNA SHAMSU REHMAN v. THE AUTHRIZED OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 5TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 3163 OF 2024 PETITIONER: SHAFNA SHAMSU REHMAN AGED 40 YEARS, W/O SHAMSU REHMAN PULLAT,KUZHIMAYILOVUNGARA, KARANTHOOR P.O,KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673571. BY ADV K.V.RASHMI RESPONDENTS: 1 2 THE AUTHRIZED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA ,NELLIKODE BRANCH, SUBADHRA BUILDINGS,POTTAMMAL,MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016. UNION BANK OF INDIA NELLIKODE BRANCH,SUBADHRA BUILDINGS,POTTAMMAL,MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE PIN - 673016 REP.BY.ITS SECRETERY. BY ADVS. ASP.KURUP SADCHITH.P.KURUP C.P.ANIL RAJ SIVA SURESH RESHMA RAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :2: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 25th day of January, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Union Bank of India to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The Bank paid ₹50 lakhs as Housing Loan and ₹11 lakhs as Term Loan to the petitioner in the year 2016. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to the accident of her husband and Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :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.P3 notice.

The petitioner states that she 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 respondents are permitted to continue with the coercive proceedings and auction the secured assets provided by the petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

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 year 2016. The petitioner W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :4: committed default in repaying the loans.

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required her 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.P3 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on

25.01.2024 is ₹90,41,031/- and the overdue amount is ₹29.50 lakhs.

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

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining the W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :5: 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.

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.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall remit 50% of the overdue amount on or before 29.02.2024 and another 50% on or before 31.03.2024 along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. (ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :6: 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 petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred. (v) After remitting the amounts as directed above, the petitioner may approach the Bank for regularisation of the loan account. JUDGE Sd/- N. NAGARESH W.P.(C) No.3163 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3163/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 10097/2023 DATED 24.03.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2023 IN WPC 10097/2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.01.2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CJM COURT