Arun Kumar Vs Hdfc Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33999 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1ARUN KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O SREEDHARAN, SN SADAN, KOTTAKKAKOM,
ARYANADU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695542
2SREEDHARAN .G
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O GANGAGADHARAN , SN SADAN, KOTTAKKAKOM,
ARYANADU TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695542
3SAVITHRI .S
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O SREEDHARAN . G S.N SADAN, KOTTAKKAKOM,
ARYANADU TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695542

¶8

BY ADV M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

HDFC LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER
MR SIVAKUMAR.S, HDFC HOUSE P.BNO 2288,
VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM ., PIN – 695014

¶11

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

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2023

¶17

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance made by the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited to the 1^st petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶18

The Bank paid ₹22.5 lakhs to the 1^st petitioner as Housing Loan in the year 2015. The petitioners state that though the 1^st petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later due to financial constraints. The repayment of loan fell into arrears later. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioners.

¶19

Though the petitioners requested the Bank to permit the petitioners to repay the overdue amounts in easy monthly

¶20

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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 respondent is 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.

¶24

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the loan was given to the 1^st petitioner in the year 2015. The 1^st petitioner committed default in repaying the loan.

¶25

¶26

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶27

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.

¶28

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioners are ready and willing to make a substantial payment

¶29

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 1^st petitioner is ₹17,00,000/- and the overdue amount is ₹1,95,354/-.

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶32

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

¶33

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 loan 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

(i) The petitioners shall remit the overdue amount of ₹1,95,354/- in four consecutive and equal monthly instalments. First of such instalments shall be paid on or before 31.12.2023.

¶37

¶38

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶39

(ii) The petitioners shall remit the balance overdue amount in subsequent consecutive three equal monthly instalments thereafter, along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

¶40

(iii) If the petitioners commit any default in making payments as directed above, the respondent will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶41

(iv) The petitioners shall also pay current EMIs along with the aforesaid payments.

¶42

(v) If the petitioners make payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioners shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.33999 of 2023

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33999/2023

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSION ON 24.09 2023 TO
THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶52

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C]
NO 20622/2019 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
DATED 29.07.2019

Arun Kumar v. Hdfc Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar v. Hdfc Ltd.

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

Joy Vs State of Kerala

Prathapan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Joy Varghese Vs Indusind Bank Ltd.

Pothan Thomas Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Rosamma Mathai, Vs State Bank of India

Sasikumar.K.M. Vs the Assistant Registrar