Mohammed Faizal P.K vs Hdfc Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 10727 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10727 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Faizal P.K vs Hdfc Bank on 12 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 15302 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         MOHAMMED FAIZAL P.K.,
         AGED 53 YEARS,
         S/O. P.K. KHALID POOVATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE
         NAMBIAPURAM ROAD PALLURUTHY,
         KOCHI ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 682006.

         BY ADVS.
         SADCHITH.P.KURUP
         C.P.ANIL RAJ
         SIVA SURESH
         B.SREEDEVI
         ATHIRA VIJAYAN


RESPONDENT:

         HDFC BANK,
         3RD FLOOR,
         SL PLAZA PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION,
         ERNAKULAM,
         EP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         PIN - 682025

         BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.15302/2024
                                  :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of

financial advance made by the HDFC Bank to the petitioner,

invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The Bank paid ₹20 lakhs to the petitioner as

Property 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

financial difficulties. The repayment of loan fell into arrears

later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the

petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner requested the Bank to

permit the petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy

monthly instalments, the Bank authorities were 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.P4 notice.

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 Bank 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 Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required him to clear the dues. The petitioner deliberately

omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the Bank 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.P4 notice was issued in these

circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal

reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the

Bank.

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

Bank from the petitioner as on 12.04.2024 is ₹26,17,727.76

and the overdue amount as on 12.04.2024 is ₹15,87,340/-.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and

the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

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 of the

account occurred lately due to reasons beyond the control

of the petitioner. The petitioner has provided substantial

security which will safeguard the interest of the Bank.

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 ₹7 lakhs on or before12.05.2024.


          (ii)     The petitioner shall remit the balance

          overdue         amount         in   subsequent

consecutive six equal monthly instalments

thereafter, along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in

making payments as directed above, the

respondent will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioner in accordance with law.