Aslam Ismail vs Authorised Officer Hdfc Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 13062 Ker

Kerala High Court

Aslam Ismail vs Authorised Officer Hdfc Bank Ltd on 23 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 18515 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         ASLAM ISMAIL
         AGED 31 YEARS, VALIYAVILA VEEDU,
         THALACHIRA P.O, VETTIKKAVALA, KOLLAM DIST.,
         PIN - 691 538.

         BY ADV
              ADARSH S.

RESPONDENT:

         AUTHORISED OFFICER HDFC BANK LTD
         1ST FLOOR, VAVA ARCADE, TRIVANDRUM ROAD,
         PULAMON JUNCTION, KOTTARAKARA, PIN - 691 531.

         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 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18515 of 2024
                                 :2:



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 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 ₹11 lakhs towards Housing Loan,

₹30,000/- towards Suraksha Loan, ₹16 lakhs, ₹7 lakhs, ₹8

lakhs and ₹5 lakhs as Top up Loans to the petitioner in the

years 2018, 2021 and 2022 respectively. 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.

The repayment of loans fell into arrears later due to financial

crisis. 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.P1 notice.

4. The petitioner states that he is still in a position to

clear the overdue amounts towards the loans, 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 loans were given to the petitioner in the years 2018, 2021

and 2022. The petitioner committed default in repaying the

loans.

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.P1 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 is more than ₹48 lakhs and the overdue

amount as on 23.05.2024 is ₹3,67,386/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned 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 accounts initially. The default in repayment of the

loan accounts 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 his liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹3,67,386/- in 10 equal and

consecutive monthly instalments along with

accruing interest and other Bank charges, if

any. First of such instalments shall be paid

on or before 24.06.2024.

(ii) If the petitioner commits single 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.

(iii) The petitioner shall also pay current

EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

         (iv)    If the petitioner pays the instalments

         as      directed    above,     any     coercive

proceedings against the petitioner shall

stand deferred.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18515/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE BANK.