Kerala High Court
Mohammed Faizal P.K vs Hdfc Bank on 12 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15302 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED FAIZAL P.K.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. P.K. KHALID POOVATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE
NAMBIAPURAM ROAD PALLURUTHY,
KOCHI ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682006.
BY ADVS.
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ
SIVA SURESH
B.SREEDEVI
ATHIRA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT:
HDFC BANK,
3RD FLOOR,
SL PLAZA PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM,
EP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
PIN - 682025
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.15302/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the HDFC 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 ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as Property 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 financial difficulties. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.15302/2024:3:
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 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 2017. The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. W.P.(C) No.15302/2024 :4:
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 12.04.2024 is ₹26,17,727.76 and the overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹15,87,340/-. W.P.(C) No.15302/2024 :5:
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 of the account 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 an amount of ₹7 lakhs on or before12.05.2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance
overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive six equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and W.P.(C) No.15302/2024 :6: other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The petitioner shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioner pays the amount as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner will stand deferred.
(vi) After clearing the overdue amount, the petitioner can approach the Bank for regularisation of the loan account.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR W.P.(C) No.15302/2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15302/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2024 PASSED IN WPC NO.
25124/2022.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.3.2024 PASSED IN WPC NO. 5082/2024 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THIS NOTICE DATED 28.3.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER.