Kerala High Court
Pankajakshan Nair K vs M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd on 5 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20205 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR K
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, SAKETH, T.C. NO. 7/1561 (3),
KURA 7B, VATTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006
2 GREESHMA
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O GEETHAKUMARI G, SAKETH,
T.C. NO. 7/1561 (3), KURA 7B,
VATTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006
3 GAYATHRI
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O GEETHAKUMARI G, SAKETH, T.C. NO. 7/1561 (3),
KURA 7B, VATTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695006
BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S. HDFC BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PB NO. 2288, OPPOSITE TAGORE THEATER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
HDFC BANK LTD, TAGORE THEATER,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
2
BY ADVS.
AMBILY S
RUBAN JOE TONIYO(K/002926/2022)
K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)(C-41)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
The 1st petitioner and his wife have availed financial
assistances from the 1st respondent-Bank. The petitioners
have filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to
command respondents to consider the request of the
petitioners and rescheduled loans and permit the petitioners
to pay off the accrued arrears in five monthly instalments.
2. The petitioners state that they are not wilful
defaulters of the loans and they were prevented from
maintaining the loan account due to situation arising out of
the illness of the wife of the 1 st petitioner and her prolonged
treatment. The petitioners state that they had volunteered
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to clear the overdue
amount by 30.06.2024 with the expectation that they could
dispose of one of their valuable property and utilise the
proceeds for repayment of the loan. Unfortunately, the sale
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
did not materialise.
3. The petitioners state that in the factual
circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to get a direction
to the respondents to keep the coercive proceedings against
the secured assets in abeyance and permitting them to clear
the accrued arrears in five monthly instalments.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The
Standing Counsel submitted that the Debts Recovery
Tribunal had passed Ext.P1 order permitting the petitioner
to pay the amount in instalments. The petitioners did not
adhere to the time schedule.
5. Standing Counsel also pointed out that the
petitioners had filed a memo in the Debts Recovery Tribunal
agreeing to pay an amount of ₹10 lakhs on or before
31.03.2024 and the balance amount in three instalments on
or before 30.06.2024. The petitioners have not paid any
amount subsequent to the filing of the memo. The writ
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended the
Standing Counsel.
6. In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging
Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the Advocate
Commissioner pursuant to an order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a petition under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
7. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and
others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared
that no writ petition shall be entertained against the
proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter
since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate
remedy.
8. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State
Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784],
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would
lie against the proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 in view of the statutory remedy
available under the said Act.
9. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756]
declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under
the Securitisation Act.
10. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen
Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances.
11. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and
others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ
petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation
Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an
effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate
the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law
made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ
petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.20205 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20205/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21/03/2024 IN SA NO. 231/2024 OF THE
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27/05/2024 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE
MAHALAKSHMY PS, ADVOCATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONERS
