Nazimudeen A vs Hdfc Bank Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 6442 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

    1     NAZIMUDEEN A, AGED 60 YEARS
          7/82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY,
          CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA-, PIN - 695614

    2     JASMI NAZIMUDEEN A, AGED 50 YEARS
          /82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY,
          CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA, PIN - 695614

    3     THAJUDHEEN A, AGED 53 YEARS
          /82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY,
          CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA, PIN - 695614

          BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     HDFC BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HDFC
          BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (WEST),
          MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA400013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR
          MANGER MR. MANIKANDAN T , RETAIL AGRI, HDFC BANK
          LINITED 2BD FLOOR B WING NM TOWERS, NELSON MANICKAM
          ROAD, AMJINKARAI, CHENNAI 600030 ,, PIN - 600030

    2     2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC BANK LIMITED
          CHOICE TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, MANORAMA JUNCTION,
          ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-682016., PIN - 682016

          BY ADVS.
          JOHN PRAKASH B J
          P.PRAMEL(K/351/2009)
          COLIN ALEX(K/000541/2020)
          AMRITHA PADMAKUMAR(K/003354/2022)
          SOORAJ M.S.(K/717/2023)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023
                               2

                        JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to

permit the petitioners to clear off the entire arrears of the

loan availed by them by granting two months time.

2. The petitioners' case is that, they had availed an

agricultural loan from the 1st respondent bank by creating

an equitable mortgage. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they

could not pay off the installments in time. The Bank has

now issued Ext.P1 demand notice under the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'Act') and is

proceeding against the secured asset. The Bank has also

filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate

alleging that the petitioners have committed offences

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

petitioners are prepared to pay the entire outstanding

amount in installments. Hence, the writ petition.

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on

25.04.2023, this Court passed an interim order directing

the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

four weeks from the date of order.

4. Heard; Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.John Prakash, the

learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Sri.John Prakash, on instructions, submitted that the

petitioners have not complied with the interim order dated

25.04.2023.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank

Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320),

after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial

pronouncements rendered under the Act, has categorically

declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra

ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings

initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

7. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have

not complied with the interim order dated 25.04.2023, I WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

am not inclined to entertain the writ petition by exercising

the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it is upto the

petitioners to work out their statutory remedies in

accordance with law.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed without

prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their

remedies in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/13.06.23 WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14667/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit1 EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTERESTS ACT DATED 17.05.2022

Exhibit P2 EXHBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.07.2022

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO EXT P2

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VII FOR NI ACT CASES, KOZHIKODE AS ST 628/2022

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ION ST 628/2022 SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VII FOR NI ACT CASES, KOZHIKODE

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 IN MC 237/2023 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 20.04.2023

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-R1(a) True copy of the request for OTS dated 02.06.2023 submitted by the Petitioner

EXHIBIT-R1(b) True copy of the letter dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Respondent