Dhanesh Pulikal Dharman vs Authorized Officer, Hdfc Bank

Kerala High Court

Dhanesh Pulikal Dharman vs Authorized Officer, Hdfc Bank on 20 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 17605 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         DHANESH PULIKAL DHARMAN
         AGED 41 YEARS, S/O DHARMAN,
         PULIKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAKULAM BEACH
         ROAD,KARAYAMUTTAM, VALAPPAD,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680683.

         BY ADVS.
         MANSOOR.B.H.
         SAKEENA BEEGUM


RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         HDFC BANK, POTTAYIL LANE BRANCH,
         THIRD FLOOR,CENTRE POINT,M.G ROAD,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680683.

         BY ADVS.
         AMBILY S
         RUPA R. NAIR
         K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.17605 of 2024
                              :2:




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of May, 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 ₹11.5 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2015. 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 W.P.(C)No.17605 of 2024 :3: Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened 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 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 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 W.P.(C)No.17605 of 2024 :4: 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 2015. 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 notice was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

:5:

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 is about ₹6 lakhs and the overdue amount as on 20.05.2024 is ₹3,05,000/-.

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 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.

:6:

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 the overdue amount of ₹3,05,000/- in ten equal and consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 20.06.2024.

(ii) 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 W.P.(C)No.17605 of 2024 :7: 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.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C)No.17605 of 2024 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17605/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/12/2023 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, THRISSUR IN CRL.MP 11017/2023 Exhibit P 2 COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED 10/5/2024