Disposed

Sheena Mathew, v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Dec 2023WP(C)/31365/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging coercive recovery proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank. The Court granted the petitioner 15 months to clear the outstanding loan amount via installment payments, directing that coercive proceedings be deferred if payments are made as directed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to clear the outstanding loan of ₹1,54,28,702 in 15 monthly installments. Coercive proceedings deferred pending compliance.

Sheena Mathew, Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 31365 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHEENA MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPERIYARAM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685608.

¶8

BY ADVS. B.S.SWATHI KUMAR ANITHA RAVINDRAN HARISANKAR N UNNI VINEETHA BOSE SANJO PRAKASH C.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 HDFC BANK LTD, RETAIL AGRI LENDING BRANCH, KANJIRAPPALLY, MARIAN COMPLEX, NEAR AKJM HIGH SCHOOL, K.K.ROAD, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN - 686507 BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER HDFC BANK LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CHOICE TOWERS, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI – 682016.

¶12

3 SHIBU MATHEW, S/O. K.V. MATHEW, KALAPURAYIL HOUSE, EAST KALOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685608.

¶13

BY ADVS. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH P.PRAMEL COLIN ALEX SOORAJ M.S.

¶14

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶15

:2:

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶18

:3:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2023

¶21

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.

¶22

The Bank paid two loans of ₹70 lakhs and ₹15 lakhs to the petitioner as Cash Credit in the year 2016. 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 due to Covid-19 pandemic. The repayment of advance fell into arrears.

¶23

It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶24

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the

¶25

petitioner to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly

¶26

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶27

:4:

¶28

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.P7 notice.

¶29

The petitioner states that she is 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 petitioner, she will be put to untold hardship and loss.

¶30

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the

¶31

Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the advance was given to the petitioner in the year 2016. The petitioner committed default in maintaining the credit facility.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶33

:5:

¶34

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.P7 notice was issued in these circumstances. The Cash Credit account is declared as NPA. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶35

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make a substantial payment soon and remit the balance outstanding 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 as on 31.10.2023 is ₹1,54,28,702/- and the overdue amount as on

¶36

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶37

:6:

¶38

18.10.2023 is ₹86,41,185/-.

¶39

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶40

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making the repayment and maintaining the loan account initially. The default in maintenance of the Cash Credit account 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.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

¶42

inclined to dispose of the writ petition giving a short and reasonable time to the petitioner to clear off the liability.

¶43

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

¶44

(I) The petitioner shall remit the outstanding

¶45

amount of ₹1,54,28,702/- in consecutive 15 equal monthly instalments along with accruing

¶46

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶47

:7:

¶48

interest and other Bank charges, if any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 08.01.2024.

¶49

(ii) An amount of ₹13.5 lakhs if availabe in the SB account of the petitioner, shall be adjusted against the first instalment payable.

¶50

(iii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶51

(iv) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶54

ams

¶55

W.P.(C)No.31365 of 2023

¶56

:8:

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31365/2023

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶59

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶60

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 7-3-2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DATED 10-11-2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 7967/2023 DATED 30-3-2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18-4-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 14819/2023 DATED 31-5-2023

¶61

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15-9-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASS BOOK OF ACCOUNT NO. 50100330610830 OF THE PETITIONER

Sheena Mathew, v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheena Mathew, v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdu Saleem C.T., Vs M/S. Indus Ind Bank Limited

Nizar Vs M/S. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Sudheer Kumar Vs the Secretary

Ciciya Johnson @ Sruthy, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Ajimon L, Vs Icici Banklimited

Khader.T.K, Vs the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Vaniyamkulam Branch