Soju Sebastian vs The Branch Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 14146 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14146 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Soju Sebastian vs The Branch Manager on 29 May, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 19351 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1     SOJU SEBASTIAN
          AGED 46 YEARS, S/O K.D SEBASTIAN
          KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, VATTAMTHODE, POTHIYURANDAMALA
          ROAD, VAYATHUR,
          KANNUR, PIN - 670 705.

    2     LAYA CHACKO
          AGED 38 YEARS, W/O SOJU SEBASTIAN, KADALIKKATTIL
          HOUSE, VATTIAMHODE, POTHIYURANDAMALA ROAD,
          VAYATHUR, KANNUR,
          PIN - 670 705.

          BY ADV
               RAMAKRISHNAN M.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE BRANCH MANAGER
          HDFC BANK LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HIGHWAY ARCADE,
          COLLECTORATE ROAD, P.O. THANA,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 002.

    2     THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
          HDFC BANK LTD., HDFC HOUSE,
          RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI,
          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 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19351 of 2024
                                :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of May, 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 ₹30 lakhs towards Housing Loan,

₹1,14,000/-, ₹51,000, ₹1,16,000/- and ₹79,000/- towards

Insurance Loans and ₹15 lakhs and ₹9 lakhs towards Top

Up Loans to the petitioners in the years 2016, 2019 and

2020. 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 loans fell into

arrears later due to the medical treatment of their aged

parents. 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 respondents are 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 respondents, it is submitted that

the loans were given to the petitioners in the years 2016,

2019 and 2020. The petitioners committed default in

repaying the loans.

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 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 is ₹66,47,734/- and the overdue amount as

on 29.05.2024 is ₹8,33,570/-.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioners and the learned 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 25.06.2024 and the

balance overdue amount in subsequent

consecutive eight equal monthly instalments

thereafter, along with accruing interest and

other Bank charges, if any.

(i) If the petitioners commit single default

in making payments as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to continue

with coercive proceedings against the

petitioners in accordance with law.