Ancy Salim vs Hdfc Bank Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 13780 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ancy Salim vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 28 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                WP(C) NO. 14074 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

         ANCY SALIM
         AGED 30 YEARS,D/O.SALIM, OLIVE KALISTA,
         ARISTA, 3D, EDACHIRA, NEAR INFOPARK,
         THENGODE.PO, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 682 030.

         BY ADVS.
              S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
              P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL

RESPONDENT:

         HDFC BANK LTD
         HDFC HOUSE, POST BAG NO-1667,
         RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD,
         ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
         OFFICER, PIN - 682 015.

         BY ADVS.
              AMBILY S
              RUPA R. NAIR(K/001021/2023)
              RUBAN JOE TONIYO(K/002926/2022)
              MATHEW JOSEPH BALUMMEL(K/001219/2019)
              K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)(C-41)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.14074 of 2024
                                 :2:



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th 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 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 ₹71,87,000/- towards Purchase

Loan and ₹1,88,000/- towards Insurance Loan to the

petitioner in the year 2019. The petitioner states that though

the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial

repayment period of the financial advance, she could not pay

the repayment instalments promptly later. The repayment of

loans fell into arrears later due to Covid-19 pandemic. 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 she 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, she 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

the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The

petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

6. The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and

required her 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 ₹75 lakhs and the overdue

amount as on 28.05.2024 is ₹4,02,000/-.

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 her liability.

11. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue

amount of ₹4,02,000/- in five 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 20.06.2024.

(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) 14074/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO-

29516/2023 OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08.09.2023.