Staisan Davy Meledath vs Hdb Financial Services Limited
2024 Latest Caselaw 10291 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10291 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Staisan Davy Meledath vs Hdb Financial Services Limited on 11 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                 WP(C) NO. 14752 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         STAISAN DAVY MELEDATH
         AGED 51 YEARS
         MELEDATH HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, CHEERACHI,
         OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680306.

         BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN


RESPONDENT:

         HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
         REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         1ST FLOOR, OLD NAGARDAS ROAD, NEAR AMBOLI
         SUBWAY, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400069.

         BY ADV.SRI.PAULOCHAN ANTONY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.14752 of 2024

                               :2:


                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance

made by the HDB Financial Services Limited to the

petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The respondent paid ₹3 Crores to the petitioner

as Business Loan in the year 2017. 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 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 respondent

to permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in

easy monthly instalments, the respondent was 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 Ext.P1 notice

invoking Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

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

petitioner, he will be put to untold hardship and loss.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf

of the respondent 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 2017.

The petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

6. The respondent repeatedly reminded the

petitioner and required him to clear the dues. The petitioner

deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the

respondent 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 Ext.P1 notice

was issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not

advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive

proceedings initiated by the respondent.

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

respondent from the petitioner as on 11.04.2024 is

₹2,39,71,261/- and the overdue amount is ₹37,16,312/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

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 respondent.

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 an amount

of ₹10 lakhs within a period of one month.

(ii) The petitioner shall remit the balance

overdue amount in subsequent consecutive

eight equal monthly instalments thereafter,

along with accruing interest and other

administrative charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.