Allowed

Prasannakumar v. Hdfc Bank

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted the petitioner an indulgence of two months to pay off his entire outstanding loan liability. The Bank was directed to defer further action under the SARFAESI Act until March 15, 2021. Physical possession of secured assets remains enforceable thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Bank to defer all further action pursuant to Ext.P3 until 15.03.2021 to allow the petitioner to pay off the entire loan liability.

Prasannakumar Vs Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.118 OF 2021(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, THAINATHOODAN HOUSE, VELAYANAD, KOTTANALLORE P.O., KOTTANALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 HDFC BANK, IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, IRINJALKUDA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶11

2 HDFC BANK, REP.AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC HOUSE, P.O.BOX NO.1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, KOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682015 R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY R2 BY ADV. SHRI.MICKY THOMAS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 118/21

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶17

for the second time, after having obtained Ext.P4 judgment in the first Writ Petition filed by him.

¶18

2. In Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had

¶19

directed him to pay the overdues in the loan account, availed by him from the respondentBank, by paying Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 20.03.2020 and the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 20.04.2020.

¶20

3. Sri.Bitto N.L – learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner, conceded that his client has not been able to comply with the directions in

¶22

Ext.P4 but asserted that this was only because

¶23

of the intervening Covid-19 pandemic

¶24

disruption. He submitted that his client has

¶25

now approached this Court again not for

¶26

regularisation of the account, but for

¶27

WPC 118/21

¶28

¶29

indulgence to pay off the entire outstanding in the loan account and to close it within a

¶30

period of two months. He, therefore, prayed that the respondent-Bank be directed to defer all further action being pursued by them under

¶31

the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the

¶32

SARFAESI Act' for brevity) for a period of two months, so that his client can then pay off

¶33

the entire liability and close the loan account. He concluded his submissions by

¶34

saying that his client has been constrained to approach this Court also on account of the grievous health condition faced by him, as is

¶35

evident from Ext.P1 medical records and

¶36

therefore, prayed that the afore requested indulgence be granted to him.

¶37

4. In response, Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai –

¶38

learned Senior Counsel, instructed by

¶39

WPC 118/21

¶40

¶41

Smt.S.Ambily, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable because Ext.P4 judgment had already been issued by this Court in his favour by allowing him to regularise the loan account. He submitted that the Bank, therefore, proposes to take over possession of the secured asset and that the learned Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the competent Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, has issued notice for the same, as is evident from Ext.P3. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶42

5. In reply, Sri.Bitto N.L. submitted

¶43

that the contention of the Bank that this Writ

¶44

Petition is not maintainable may not be accurate because in the first Writ Petition

¶45

his client had only prayed for regularisation of the loan account; while in this Writ Petition, he seeks for closure of the loan

¶46

WPC 118/21

¶47

¶48

account, for which only a period of two months have been requested for. He, therefore, prayed that this limited lenitude be shown to his client.

¶49

6. On hearing Sri.N.L.Bitto as afore, I

¶50

asked Sri.Chandran Pillai, learned Senior

¶51

Counsel, as to whether the Bank can offer a final lenitude to the petitioner, to which he fairly submitted that if this Court clarifies that after the period of two months physical possession of the secured assets can be taken by the learned Advocate Commissioner without any resistance from the petitioner, his client will agree to the requested indulgence, however, praying that no further time be granted to them.

¶52

7. Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel for

¶53

the petitioner, acceded to the above and prayed that this Writ Petition be ordered on

such terms.

WPC 118/21

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶58

writ petition and direct that all further action pursuant to Ext.P3 be deferred until 15.03.2021; within which time, the petitioner will be at liberty to pay off the entire loan liability, along with all applicable charges and interest.

¶59

Needless to say, if the petitioner does not make the payment and close the liability on 15.03.2021, the learned Advocate

¶60

Commissioner will be at liberty to take physical possession of the secured asset based on Ext.P3 notice and I record that this has

¶61

been expressly acceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 118/21

APPENDIX

PETITION	ER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE OF THE	COPY PETIT	OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS IONER
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE RESPON	COPY DENTS	OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DATED 2/12/2019
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COMMIS 24/2/2	COPY SIONER 020	OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TO THE PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE 6655 O COURT	COPY F 2020 DATED	OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH 5/3/2020

Prasannakumar v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannakumar v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shine Plast Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

Mohammed Musthafa Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sabu A.A. Vs the Authorized Officer

Anoop Poulose Vs Joint Labour Commissioner

Ashai Kumar Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

P C Sokan Vs the State of Kerala