Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 17970 OF 2023 PETITIONERS: 1 SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 63 YEARS BUSINESS MAN, NAROTH PUDUKUDY RAMANILAYAM, THANA. (PO) KANNUR, PIN - 670012 2 MRS. CHANDINI SANTHOSH AGED 58 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH, NAROTH PUDUKUDY RAMANILAYAM, THANA. (PO) KANNUR, PIN - 670012 BY ADV T.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORIZED OFFICER HOUSE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO-OPERATION LTD. HDFC BANK, POST BAG NO. 1667 RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 2 CHIEF MANAGER HOUSE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO-OPERATION LTD. HDFC BANK, POST BAG NO. 1667 RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - BY ADVS. S.AMBILY RUPA R. NAIR(K/001021/2023) MATHEW JOSEPH BALUMMEL(K/001219/2019) K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)(C-41) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2023 The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent bank to regularise the three housing loan accounts that were availed by the petitioners.
2. The petitioners’ case is that, they have
availed three housing loan from the respondent bank by creating an equitable mortgage. However, due to reasons beyond their control, they could not repay the EMIs on time. The bank has now proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). The petitioners are prepared to pay off the overdue amounts in instalments. Hence, the
writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Ramesh Babut, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.S.Ambily, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Smt.S.Ambily, on instructions, submitted
that the total outstanding amount is more than Rs.2 crore. As on today, the overdue amount is more than Rs.22 lakh. The bank is not ready to provide any instalments facility to the petitioners. Moreover, the SARFAESI proceedings is only at its nascent stage. It is upto the petitioners to approach the bank and show their bonafides by depositing substantial amount. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. 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.
6. Having considered the pleadings and
materials on record and taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, It is upto the petitioners to invoke the statutory remedies as provided under the Act. Hence, 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 SKP/05-06 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17970/2023 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE BANK DATED EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE BANK DATED EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE BANK DATED EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOAN
AGREEMENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE