Sam Mathew vs Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 4670 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
    WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 28850 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SAM MATHEW,
          VILLA NO.4, RAHANA HOMES, THE GREENS PERAMANGALAM.P.O,
          THRISSUR-680545

          BY ADV V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY



RESPONDENTS:

    1     MANAGER,
          HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COOPERATION LTD. HDFC
          HOUSE, POST BAG NO.1167, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION MG ROAD
          KOCHI- 682015

    2     HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COOPERATION LTD.,
          HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO.1167, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION MG
          ROAD KOCHI -682015 REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER

          BY ADVS.
          K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
          S.AMBILY
          LAKSHMI ANIL




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28850 OF 2022             2


                             T.R. RAVI, J.
              --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C).No.28850 of 2022
               --------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023


                             JUDGMENT

The contention of the petitioner is that the classification of

A/c.Nos.631295067 and 639905719 as NPA is not justified. A

direction to exclude the said accounts and a further direction to the

respondents to proceed against A/c.No.630147606 is sought for. The

petitioner contends that there was no notice issued to him with

regard to classification as NPA and there is no justification for the

classification since payments have been regular in the above said two

accounts. It is however admitted that with regard to

A/c.No.630147606 there is considerable default. The petitioner relies

on the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India with regard to

classification of accounts as NPA. In particular, reliance is placed on

clause No.4.2.4 dealing with accounts with temporary deficiencies.

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that

when there are several credit limits being enjoyed by a borrower, the

accounts in which payments are being made, are also bound to be

classified as NPA, if one of the accounts has become an NPA. The

petitioner has no contention that A/c.No.630147606 is not an NPA.

The respondents have produced the relevant portions of the circular

in support of the contention. The circular specifically provided that

no account can be upgraded from the status of NPA if any of the

credit limits which are being enjoyed by the borrower is an NPA. The

contention of the petitioner based on the circular hence fails.

3. The petitioner relies on certain decisions M/s.Stan

Commiidities Pvt.Ltd vs. Punjab and Sind Bank [2009 KHC

6708], Sravan Dall Mill P. Ltd vs. Central Bank of India and

Another [2010 KHC 6334], in support of the contentions. The

argument is that, if the borrower has submitted an objection to a

notice under Section 13(2), the same should necessarily be

considered and the reason for rejection of the objection should be

informed to the borrower. It is also held in the said decisions that if

the norms prescribed by the RBI for declaring an account as NPA is

not followed, the proceedings in furtherance of that can also be not

legally justified. I do not think that the above said judgments can

help the cause of the petitioner.

In the case on hand, to the notice issued under Section 13(2),

the petitioner had replied through his advocate as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5

does not refer to any contention to the effect that the classification as

NPA is wrong . All that is stated is that as long as the petitioner was

making payments regularly with regard to the two other accounts

which by themselves have not become NPA, the respondents do not

have a right to even issue a notice under Section 13(2). The specific

contention taken in the said reply is that the respondents may

proceed against the property which had been secured against the

loan 630147606. I do not find any illegality in the classification of the

accounts as NPA. The reliefs claimed cannot be granted. The writ

petition fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

LEK

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28850/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.06.2022 IN CONNECTION WITH A/C. NO.

631295067

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.06.2022 IN CONNECTION WITH ACCOUNT NO. 639905719

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.06.2022 IN CONNECTION WITH ACCOUNT NO. 630147606

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2022 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE TO EXHIBIT.P4 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2022

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT THRISSUR DATED 20.02.2023

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 01.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

ANNEXURE 3 RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 01.04.2022 ISSUED BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA