Prasannakumar vs Hdfc Bank And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court for the second time, after having obtained Ext.P4 judgment in the first Writ Petition filed by him.

In Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had directed him to pay the overdues in the loan account, availed by him from the respondent-Bank, by paying

Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 20.03.2020 and the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 20.04.2020.

Sri.Bitto N.L â€" learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that his client has not been able to comply with the directions in Ext.P4 but asserted

that this was only because of the intervening Covid-19 pandemic disruption. He submitted that his client has now approached this Court again not for

regularisation of the account, but for indulgence to pay off the entire outstanding in the loan account and to close it within a period of two months. He,

therefore, prayed that the respondent-Bank be directed to defer all further action being pursued by them under the provisions of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) for a period of two months, so that

his client can then pay off the entire liability and close the loan account. He concluded his submissions by saying that his client has been constrained to

approach this Court also on account of the grievous health condition faced by him, as is evident from Ext.P1 medical records and therefore, prayed

that the afore requested indulgence be granted to him.

In response, Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai â€" learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.S.Ambily, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank

submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable because Ext.P4 judgment had already been issued by this Court in his favour by allowing him to

regularise the loan account. He submitted that the Bank, therefore, proposes to take over possession of the secured asset and that the learned

Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the competent Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, has issued notice for the same, as is evident from Ext.P3. He,

therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

In reply, Sri.Bitto N.L. submitted that the contention of the Bank that this Writ Petition is not maintainable may not be accurate because in the first

Writ Petition his client had only prayed for regularisation of the loan account; while in this Writ Petition, he seeks for closure of the loan account, for

which only a period of two months have been requested for. He, therefore, prayed that this limited lenitude be shown to his client.

On hearing Sri.N.L.Bitto as afore, I asked Sri.Chandran Pillai, learned Senior Counsel, as to whether the Bank can offer a final lenitude to the

petitioner, to which he fairly submitted that if this Court clarifies that after the period of two months physical possession of the secured assets can be

taken by the learned Advocate Commissioner without any resistance from the petitioner, his client will agree to the requested indulgence, however,

praying that no further time be granted to them.

Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel for the petitioner, acceded to the above and prayed that this Writ Petition be ordered on such terms.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct that all further action pursuant to Ext.P3 be deferred until 15.03.2021; within which

time, the petitioner will be at liberty to pay off the entire loan liability, along with all applicable charges and interest.

Needless to say, if the petitioner does not make the payment and close the liability on 15.03.2021, the learned Advocate Commissioner will be at

liberty to take physical possession of the secured asset based on Ext.P3 notice and I record that this has been expressly acceded to by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.