Kerala High Court
Thomas Joseph vs Hdfc Bank Ltd 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. 14756 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS JOSEPH
AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF OUSEPH, RESIDING APPACHERIL HOUSE,
LAKKATTOOR ROAD, AYARAKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
BY ADVS.
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 HDFC BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD.,
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS, 1ST FLOOR,
CHOICE TOWERS, MANORMA JUNCTION, KOCHI,
PIN - 682016
2 SENIOR MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER
HDFC BANK LTD., DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS,
1ST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS,
MANORMA JUNCTION, KOCHI, PIN - 682016
3 THE MANAGER
HDFC BANK LTD, ORAVACKAL BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR,
ORAVACKAL BUILDING, AMAYANNOOR,
ORAVAKKAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686025
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AYARAKUNNAM POLICE STATION, AYARAKUNNAM,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686564
BY ADV SUJESH KUMAR K P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.14756 Of 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 Limited 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 ₹65 lakhs towards Cash Credit
facility in the year 2012, ₹13,30,800/- towards GECL Loan in
the year 2020 and ₹10,50,000/- towards Term Loan in the
year 2021 to the petitioner. 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 installments promptly later due to financial
difficulty. The repayment of loan fell into arrears. It happened
WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024
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
installments, 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 Exts.P5 and P6 notices.
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 installments. If the
respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that
WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024
the loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2012, 2020
and 2021. 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 Exts.P5 and P6 notices were 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 outstanding amount immediately
thereafter, a short breathing time can be granted to the
petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted
WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024
that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the
petitioner as on 08.04.2024 is ₹1,82,00,000/-.
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 loan
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.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of
directing that if the petitioner remits an amount of ₹30 lakhs
within a period of one month from today and makes a
concrete proposal for One Time Settlement giving the
settlement amount and the timeline for payment, then the
WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024
Bank shall consider the same in accordance with law. If the
petitioner remits the amount of ₹30 lakhs and makes a
proposal within a period of one month, coercive proceedings
against the petitioner shall stand deferred till the Bank takes a
decision. If the petitioner does not remit the amount as
directed above, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed against
the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.14756 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14756/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14/07/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
10/08/2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
ISSUED FROM MAR SLEEVA MEDICITY
HOSPITAL PALAI REGARDING THE TREATMENT
OF ROSAMMA JOSEPH
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADV.
SREELAKSHMI P.R. DATED 27/03/2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
28/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16/04/2024 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE KOTTAYAM
