Sajeevan.P.S vs Authorized Officer The Peoples Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd

N. Nagaresh, J

1.The petitioner is before this Court seeking to declare that the initiation of Section 14 measures during the statutory appeal period is illegal and against law.

The petitioner stood as a surety against a loan availed by one Mr. Joshy P.C. from the Peoples Urban Co-operative Bank, Kadavanthra for an amount of ₹30 lakhs in the year 2016. The petitioner pledged his residential property and building having an extent of 10 Cents and 1100 square feet respectively, as security.

When the borrower failed to repay, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner's property is now attempted to be put on sale. The petitioner seeks a reasonable time to settle the loan account for which he is even ready to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I with a statutory appeal, contends the petitioner.

Earlier, Ext.P1 Sale Notice dated 11.10.2021 was issued, but the sale was not materialised. Subsequent attempts to put the petitioner's property to sale also failed. On 25.04.2021, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking time to settle the loan account. The petitioner states that if the Bank initiates further recovery proceedings, third party interest will be created. The petitioner proposes to file a statutory appeal in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The petitioner therefore prays that the 1st respondent be directed to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner.

Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is submitted that an amount of ₹30 lakhs was advanced to the 3rd respondent in the year 2016. Repayment was not made promptly. A demand notice was sent to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner in the year 2019. Ultimately, the Bank itself purchased the property in the year 2022.

In order to realise the loan, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The total amount outstanding in the loan account, for which the petitioner stood as guarantor, is ₹47,95,208/- as on 01.12.2023. For any relief in the matter, the petitioner has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is only to be dismissed.

Heard.

The petitioner pledged his residential building and property for a loan taken by the 3rd respondent in the year 2016. As the repayment of loan fell into arrears, the Bank has initiated coercive proceedings invoking the provisions of the Securitisation Act. The petitioner now submits that he will be able to pay the amounts if a breathing time is granted.

I find that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation in this regard to respondents 1 and 2. Taking into consideration the fact that what is sought to be sold is a residential property, I am of the view that the respondents shall consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision thereon.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing competent among the respondents to consider Ext.P2 representation and take appropriate decision thereon, expeditiously, in accordance with law.