Dismissed

Nazimudeen a v. Hdfc Bank Limited

Kerala HC13 Jun 2023WP(C)/14667/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioners sought time to clear agricultural loan arrears and alleged SARFAESI proceedings and NI Act complaints. After noting their failure to comply with an interim order for partial payment, the court did not entertain the plea and dismissed the petition without prejudice to future remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to work out remedies under the law.

Nazimudeen a Vs Hdfc Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 NAZIMUDEEN A, AGED 60 YEARS 7/82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA-, PIN - 695614

¶8

2 JASMI NAZIMUDEEN A, AGED 50 YEARS /82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA, PIN - 695614

¶9

3 THAJUDHEEN A, AGED 53 YEARS /82, THOPPIL GARDENS, ADAYAMON P.O., THOLIKUZHY, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THATTATHUMALA, PIN - 695614

¶10

BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 HDFC BANK LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL (WEST), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA400013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANGER MR. MANIKANDAN T , RETAIL AGRI, HDFC BANK LINITED 2BD FLOOR B WING NM TOWERS, NELSON MANICKAM ROAD, AMJINKARAI, CHENNAI 600030 ,, PIN - 600030

¶13

2 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDFC BANK LIMITED CHOICE TOWERS, GROUND FLOOR, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-682016., PIN - 682016

¶14

BY ADVS. JOHN PRAKASH B J P.PRAMEL(K/351/2009) COLIN ALEX(K/000541/2020) AMRITHA PADMAKUMAR(K/003354/2022) SOORAJ M.S.(K/717/2023)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to clear off the entire arrears of the loan availed by them by granting two months time.

¶20

The petitioners' case is that, they had availed an agricultural loan from the 1^st respondent bank by creating an equitable mortgage. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, they could not pay off the installments in time. The Bank has now issued Ext.P1 demand notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'Act') and is proceeding against the secured asset. The Bank has also filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging that the petitioners have committed offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are prepared to pay the entire outstanding amount in installments. Hence, the writ petition.

¶21

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 25.04.2023, this Court passed an interim order directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within

¶22

WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

¶23

¶24

four weeks from the date of order.

¶25

Heard; Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.John Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Sri.John Prakash, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have not complied with the interim order dated 25.04.2023.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that the petitioners have not complied with the interim order dated 25.04.2023, I

¶29

WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

am not inclined to entertain the writ petition by exercising the discretionary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it is upto the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies in accordance with law.

¶32

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

rkc/13.06.23

WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2023

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14667/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit1	EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE
	ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) O	F THE
	SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTI	ON OF
	FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEME SECURITY INTERESTS ACT DATED 17.05	NT OF .2022
Exhibit P2	EXHBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 11.07.2022	REPLY
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY 21.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDE TO EXT P2	DATED NT BANK
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PR BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFOR SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAG COURT VII FOR NI ACT CASES, KOZHI ST 628/2022	EFERRED E THE ISTRATE KODE AS
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECO PROCEEDINGS ION ST 628/2022 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE VII FOR NI ACT CASES, KOZHIKODE	RD OF SPECIAL COURT
Exhibit P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 24.03.2022 IN MC 237/2023 ISSUED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM	DATED BY THE COURT,
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISS THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER 20.04.2023	UED BY DATED
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R1(a)	True copy of the request for OTS 02.06.2023 submitted by the Petiti	dated oner
EXHIBIT-R1(b)	True copy of the letter dated 08.	06.2023
	issued by the Respondent

Nazimudeen a v. Hdfc Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazimudeen a v. Hdfc Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhakumar Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd.

Mathew Cyriac, Vs the Manager

Gireesh Kumar.E, Vs State of Kerala

Puliyilethu Distributors, Vs Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank

Lemin Lawrence, Vs Authorised Officer

Rajeev Bhaskara Warrier, Vs the Authorized Officer