Prasannakumar vs Hdfc Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 277 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.118 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER:

               PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O.CHANDRAN, THAINATHOODAN HOUSE,
               VELAYANAD, KOTTANALLORE P.O.,
               KOTTANALLUR VILLAGE,
               MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT

               BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO


RESPONDENTS:

      1        HDFC BANK, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,
               REP.BY ITS MANAGER, IRINJALKUDA P.O.,
               MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

      2        HDFC BANK, REP.AUTHORISED OFFICER,
               HDFC HOUSE, P.O.BOX NO.1667,
               RAVIPURAM JUNCTION,
               KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682015

               R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
               R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY
               R2 BY ADV. SHRI.MICKY THOMAS


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 118/21
                                            2


                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

for the second time, after having obtained

Ext.P4 judgment in the first Writ Petition

filed by him.

2. In Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had

directed him to pay the overdues in the loan

account, availed by him from the respondent-

Bank, by paying Rs.2,50,000/- on or before

20.03.2020 and the balance amount of

Rs.12,000/- in four equal monthly instalments

commencing from 20.04.2020.

3. Sri.Bitto N.L - learned counsel for

the petitioner, conceded that his client has

not been able to comply with the directions in

Ext.P4 but asserted that this was only because

of the intervening Covid-19 pandemic

disruption. He submitted that his client has

now approached this Court again not for

regularisation of the account, but for WPC 118/21

indulgence to pay off the entire outstanding

in the loan account and to close it within a

period of two months. He, therefore, prayed

that the respondent-Bank be directed to defer

all further action being pursued by them under

the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the

SARFAESI Act' for brevity) for a period of two

months, so that his client can then pay off

the entire liability and close the loan

account. He concluded his submissions by

saying that his client has been constrained to

approach this Court also on account of the

grievous health condition faced by him, as is

evident from Ext.P1 medical records and

therefore, prayed that the afore requested

indulgence be granted to him.

4. In response, Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai -

learned Senior Counsel, instructed by WPC 118/21

Smt.S.Ambily, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent-Bank submitted that this Writ

Petition is not maintainable because Ext.P4

judgment had already been issued by this Court

in his favour by allowing him to regularise

the loan account. He submitted that the Bank,

therefore, proposes to take over possession of

the secured asset and that the learned

Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the

competent Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court,

has issued notice for the same, as is evident

from Ext.P3. He, therefore, prayed that this

Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. In reply, Sri.Bitto N.L. submitted

that the contention of the Bank that this Writ

Petition is not maintainable may not be

accurate because in the first Writ Petition

his client had only prayed for regularisation

of the loan account; while in this Writ

Petition, he seeks for closure of the loan WPC 118/21

account, for which only a period of two months

have been requested for. He, therefore, prayed

that this limited lenitude be shown to his

client.

6. On hearing Sri.N.L.Bitto as afore, I

asked Sri.Chandran Pillai, learned Senior

Counsel, as to whether the Bank can offer a

final lenitude to the petitioner, to which he

fairly submitted that if this Court clarifies

that after the period of two months physical

possession of the secured assets can be taken

by the learned Advocate Commissioner without

any resistance from the petitioner, his client

will agree to the requested indulgence,

however, praying that no further time be

granted to them.

7. Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel for

the petitioner, acceded to the above and

prayed that this Writ Petition be ordered on

such terms.

WPC 118/21

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and direct that all further

action pursuant to Ext.P3 be deferred until

15.03.2021; within which time, the petitioner

will be at liberty to pay off the entire loan

liability, along with all applicable charges

and interest.

Needless to say, if the petitioner does

not make the payment and close the liability

on 15.03.2021, the learned Advocate

Commissioner will be at liberty to take

physical possession of the secured asset based

on Ext.P3 notice and I record that this has

been expressly acceded to by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Sd/-

                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      RR                                      JUDGE
 WPC 118/21



                           APPENDIX
      PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

      EXHIBIT P1        A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS
                        OF THE PETITIONER

      EXHIBIT P2        A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
                        RESPONDENTS DATED 2/12/2019

      EXHIBIT P3        A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE

COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/2/2020

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6655 OF 2020 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DATED 5/3/2020