Kerala High Court
Staisan Davy Meledath vs Hdb Financial Services Limited on 11 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14752 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
STAISAN DAVY MELEDATH
AGED 51 YEARS
MELEDATH HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, CHEERACHI,
OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680306.
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT:
HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, OLD NAGARDAS ROAD, NEAR AMBOLI
SUBWAY, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400069.
BY ADV.SRI.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the HDB Financial Services Limited to the petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The respondent paid ₹3 Crores to the petitioner as Business Loan in the year 2017. 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 W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :3: the petitioner.
3. Though the petitioner requested the respondent to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly instalments, the respondent was 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) read with Section 13(13) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 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 W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :4: 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 respondent 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 2017. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The respondent repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the respondent 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 W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :5: proceedings initiated by the respondent.
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 respondent from the petitioner as on 11.04.2024 is ₹2,39,71,261/- and the overdue amount is ₹37,16,312/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondent.
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 W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :6: safeguard the interest of the respondent.
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 an amount of ₹10 lakhs within a period of one month.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance overdue amount in subsequent consecutive eight equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other administrative charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :7: with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14752/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 14.2.2024