Disposed

Aji Peter, v. the Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd, Ravipuram

Kerala HC1 Feb 2024WP(C)/2415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by HDFC Bank for non-payment of housing and insurance loans. Court directed petitioner to clear overdue amounts in three instalments with deferred coercive actions if complied. Default leads to resumption of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to remit overdue amount in three equal monthly instalments starting by 29.02.2024; coercive proceedings deferred upon compliance.

Aji Peter, Vs the Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd, Ravipuram — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2415 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AJI PETER
AGED 48 YEARS, KANNAMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
FLAT NO 10. C 10TH FLOOR, SAPHIRE HOUSE, VENNALA
( PO)ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN – 682 020.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SHINTO THOMAS
KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
HARIDAS P.NAIR
K.L.SREEKALA
ANU PRABHAKAR
PRASOON.K.P
DEVIKA. R. KRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD,
RAVIPURAM, HDFC HOUSE PB NO.1667,
RAVIPURAM JUNCTION MG ROAD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN – 682 015.

¶12

2THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFASI ACT,
THE HDFC BANK LTD, RAVIPURAM,
THE HDFC BANK LTD, RAVIPURAM,
HDFC HOUSE PB NO.1667,
RAVIPURAM JUNCTION MG ROAD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN – 682 015.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2024

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶21

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 ₹35 lakhs to the petitioner as Housing Loan and 1,47,000 as Insurance Loan in the year₹ 2017. The petitioner states that though the petitioner made remittances promptly during the initial repayment period of the financial advance, he could not pay the repayment instalments promptly later. The repayment of loans fell into arrears later due to financial stringency. It happened due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

Though the petitioner requested the Bank to permit the petitioner 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 Exts.P1 to P3 and P5 notices.

¶26

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

¶27

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Bank and denied all the statements made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the loans were given to the petitioner in the year 2019. The

¶28

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

petitioner committed default in repaying the loans.

¶31

The Bank repeatedly reminded the petitioner and required him 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 Exts.P1 to P3 and P5 were issued in these circumstances. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reasons to thwart the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶32

The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that if the petitioner is 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 petitioner to clear the dues. The Standing Counsel submitted that the outstanding amount due to the Bank from the petitioner as on 23.01.2024 is ₹36,35,084/- and the overdue amount as on 01.02.2024 is 2,84,107/-.₹

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

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 petitioner to clear off his liability.

¶39

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

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of 2,84,107/- in three equal and₹

¶41

consecutive monthly instalments along with accruing interest and other Bank charges, if any.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

(ii) First of such instalments shall be paid

¶45

on or before 29.02.2024.

¶46

(iii) If the petitioner commit 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.

¶47

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

¶48

(v) If the petitioner pay the instalments as directed above, any coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶51

AMR

¶52

W.P.(C) No.2415 of 2024

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2415/2024

¶55

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1

¶57

THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
IN THE HOME LOAN DATED 27/10/2023.

¶58

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
IN THE PERSONAL LOAN DATED 27/10/2023.

¶59

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
10/11/2023.

¶60

Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
MADE BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 13/11/2023.

¶61

Exhibit P5

¶62

THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
12/1/2024.

Aji Peter, v. the Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd, Ravipuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji Peter, v. the Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd, Ravipuram

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

Prince Varghese through Power of Attorney Holder, Vs Union of India

Sunilkumar S Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Kerala Bank)

Sree Renjini Vs Central Bank of India

Benazeer Riyas Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Abida Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Indrajith Rajesh, Vs Union of India