Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9512 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 43970 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 DR. JYOTHI BABU A.,
AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. AYYAKKANNU,
VAISHNEVAM, KURUMPALA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689501
2 SULA JYOTHI,
AGED 53 YEARS,
W/O. DR. JYOTHI BABU A. VAISHNAVAM,
KURUMPELA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689501
BY ADVS.
S.JAMAL
VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
HDFC BANK LTD, HDFC HOUSE,
VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
AMBILY S
RUPA R. NAIR(K/001021/2023)
RUBAN JOE TONIYO(K/002926/2022)
K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)(C-41)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.43970/2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024
The petitioners have approached this Court
aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of
financial advance made by the HDFC Bank to the
petitioners, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. The Bank paid ₹75 lakhs to the petitioners as
Equity Loan and an amount of ₹11 lakhs as Insurance in
the year 2018. The petitioners state that though the
petitioners made remittances promptly during the initial
repayment period of the financial advance, they could not
pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The
repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to
reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.
3. Though the petitioners requested the Bank to
permit the petitioners 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.P1 notice.
4. The petitioners state that they are 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 petitioners, they 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
petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that
the loans were given to the petitioners in the year 2018.
The petitioners committed default in repaying the loan.
6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioners
and required them to clear the dues. The petitioners
deliberately omitted to do so. In the circumstances, the
Bank had no other go, than to proceed against the
petitioners 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 petitioners have
not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive
proceedings initiated by the Bank.
7. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if
the petitioners are 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 petitioners to clear the dues. The Standing
Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the
Bank from the petitioners as on 15.02.2024 is ₹84,38,355/-
and the overdue amount as on 04.04.2024 is ₹9,75,607/-.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and
the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
9. The specific case of the petitioners is that the
petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners have
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 petitioners to clear off the liability.
11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall remit an amount
of ₹2 lakhs on or before 30.04.2024.
(ii) The petitioners shall remit the
balance overdue amount in subsequent
consecutive 10 equal monthly instalments
thereafter, along with accruing interest and
other Bank charges, if any.
(iii) If the petitioners commit default in
making payments as directed above, the
respondent will be at liberty to continue
with coercive proceedings against the
petitioners in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioners shall also pay current
EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.
(v) If the petitioners pay the amount as
directed above, any coercive proceedings
against the petitioners will stand deferred.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43970/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25- 09-2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED REPLY NOTICE DATED 23-11-2023 SENT TO THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING THE TREATMENT AND DIAGNOSIS OF THE FIRST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ST GREGORIOS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL, PAMUMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA ISSUED BY THE CONSULTANT MEDICAL 0NCOLOGIST DATED 24-10-2023.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!