Smitha Henson vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 505 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER:

               SMITHA HENSON
               AGED 48 YEARS
               W/O. LATE HENSON ISSAC,
               HOUSE NO.2, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
               GANDHI NAGAR NEW STREET,
               CHEROOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 008.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
               SRI.E.S.SANEEJ

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               HDFC BANK LTD., G-FLOOR, V
               ETTEKKATT ARCADE, MARAR ROAD,
               THRISSUR-680 001.

      2        BRANCH MANAGER,
               HDFC BANK LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH,
               G-FLOOR, VETTEKKATT ARCADE,
               MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. P.BINNY JOSEPH - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)

                                       2

                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021

Through this writ petition, the

petitioner calls into question certain

proceedings initiated and being pursued by

the respondent Bank under the provisions of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act'

for brevity).

2. I have heard the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned counsel for

the respondent Bank.

3. As I proceed to consider the reliefs

prayed for by the petitioner herein, I am

conscious that I am jurisdictionally

proscribed from entering into any enquiry or

consideration of the legality or otherwise of

the orders impugned in this writ petition on

account of the imperative statutory WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)

provisions and the binding judicial

pronouncements, especially that of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India

v. Satyawati Tondon [2010 (8) SCC 110] and in

Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore

and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT

784]. I, therefore, cannot and do not

propose to consider any of the legal

contentions raised by the petitioner on its

merits.

4. However, obviously being aware of

this, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding

the limitations of jurisdiction as

aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted

some leniency or latitude in order to enable

her to pay off the overdue amounts in

installments.

5. I, therefore, enquired with the

learned counsel for the Bank as to whether WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)

the request on the part of the petitioner can

be allowed, especially on account of the fact

that the Banks are only interested in

recovering and not in maintaining and keep

pending litigations and legal proceedings

against such recovery. The learned counsel

has fairly submitted that the Bank is

concerned about recovery at the earliest and

that if the petitioner pays off the dues

quickly, it would be to their interest also.

          6.      In     view    of     the      fact     that     the

   proceedings            initiated         by   the     Bank    would

consume time to culminate in total recovery

and taking into account the financial

constraints and burden that have been alleged

and pleaded by the petitioner, I am inclined

to dispose of this writ petition allowing her

an opportunity to pay off the overdue amounts

demanded by the Bank.

7. The learned counsel for the Bank at WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)

this time submits that the petitioner can be

allowed to pay off the overdue amount of Rs.

53,000/-, as on 07.01.2021, in not more than

three installments commencing from 20.1.2021

and that the account can thus be regularised

by the Bank.

8. The learned counsel for the

petitioner says that the petitioner is

agreeable to the above offer made by the Bank

and therefore that the writ petition may be

ordered granting permission to the petitioner

to pay off the amount in the manner as afore.

9. In such circumstances, I direct the

petitioner to pay off the aforementioned

overdue amount of Rs.53,000/- as on

07.01.2021, along with applicable charges and

interest, in three equal monthly installments

commencing from 21.01.2021. She shall also,

in addition to this, pay the regular EMIs

without fail. If such payment is made by the WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)

petitioner, her loan account would stand

regularised and she would then be at liberty

to service the account as per the terms of

the loan sanctioned. It goes without saying

that if there is any default in making the

payment as directed above, the benefit

granted under this judgment would stand

vacated and the Bank will be at liberty to

recover the entire liability from the

petitioner by continuing with the proceedings

from the stage it is on this date.

I make it clear that the directions in

this judgment are peremptory in nature and

that the petitioner will have to comply with

the same meticulously.

          The        writ      petition           is        ordered

     accordingly.

                                                  Sd/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Sn                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.29050 OF 2020(E)




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION

CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL- 08-AX-8942.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 14.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Sn

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE