Kerala High Court
Thomas Joseph vs Hdfc Bank Ltd 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. 14756 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS JOSEPH
AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF OUSEPH, RESIDING APPACHERIL HOUSE,
LAKKATTOOR ROAD, AYARAKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 HDFC BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD.,
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS, 1ST FLOOR,
CHOICE TOWERS, MANORMA JUNCTION, KOCHI,
PIN - 682016
2 SENIOR MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
HDFC BANK LTD., DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS,
1ST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS,
MANORMA JUNCTION, KOCHI, PIN - 682016
3 THE MANAGER
HDFC BANK LTD, ORAVACKAL BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR,
ORAVACKAL BUILDING, AMAYANNOOR,
ORAVAKKAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686025
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AYARAKUNNAM POLICE STATION, AYARAKUNNAM,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
BY ADV SUJESH KUMAR K P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.14756 Of 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 Limited 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 ₹65 lakhs towards Cash Credit facility in the year 2012, ₹13,30,800/- towards GECL Loan in the year 2020 and ₹10,50,000/- towards Term Loan in the year 2021 to the petitioner. 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 installments promptly later due to financial difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024 3 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 installments, 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 Exts.P5 and P6 notices.
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 installments. If the respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024 4 the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2012, 2020 and 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 Exts.P5 and P6 notices were 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 outstanding amount immediately thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024 5 that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 08.04.2024 is ₹1,82,00,000/-.
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 loan 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.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner remits an amount of ₹30 lakhs within a period of one month from today and makes a concrete proposal for One Time Settlement giving the settlement amount and the timeline for payment, then the WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024 6 Bank shall consider the same in accordance with law. If the petitioner remits the amount of ₹30 lakhs and makes a proposal within a period of one month, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till the Bank takes a decision. If the petitioner does not remit the amount as directed above, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14756/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14/07/2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM MAR SLEEVA MEDICITY HOSPITAL PALAI REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF ROSAMMA JOSEPH Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADV.
SREELAKSHMI P.R. DATED 27/03/2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
28/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16/04/2024 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE KOTTAYAM