SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Authorised Officer, HDFC Bank Limited – Appellant 
Versus  
Narayanan Potty V., S/o. Vasudevan Potty – Respondent  
WA No. 2175 of 2025
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI, SRI.V.V.SHAJI, SHRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH, SMT.NEKHA VARGHESE
For the Respondent: ADV.SRI.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

The court affirmed that once vehicle repossession occurs under SARFAESI, the aggrieved party must challenge such repossession through the appropriate statutory tribunal rather than via subsequent writ applications.

Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) - Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Writ jurisdiction - Appeal against interlocutory order for vehicle repossession following default in loan repayment - Respondents failed to comply with judgment directions to regularize loan account within specified time, thus allowing bank to proceed under SARFAESI Act - Interference by High Court deemed unjustified as separate cause of action arising from repossession not properly challenged - Learned Single Judge's conditional order to restore possession upon payment of overdue amount overturned. (Paras 20, 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The respondents availed a vehicle loan, defaulted payments, leading to the bank issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. They filed multiple writ petitions seeking leniency on payments and possession restoration after repossession of the vehicle.

Findings of Court:
The respondents' failure to adhere to the payment structure led to legally justified actions by the bank, solidified by previous judgments.

Issues: The court examined the legality of the Single Judge's interference with the bank's repossession actions and the respondents’ default justification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the learned Single Judge's order was unwarranted since it intervened post-repossession without appropriately challenging the repossession notice, violating established law principles.

Result: Writ appeal allowed; order set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was filed by the respondents herein, who had availed a loan from HDFC Bank Limited, the 2nd appellant herein, for purchasing a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 01/CT-9091. When the respondents defaulted repayment, the authorised officer of the Bank, the 1st appellant herein, issued Ext.P1 notice dated 27.12.2024, invoking the provisions under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding a payment of Rs.13,74,452.13 together with future interest at the contractual rate and penal interest, with effect from 25.12.2024. In Ext.P1 notice it is stated that on account of default in repayment of the secured debt, the account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 03.09.2024. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the respondents herein have submitted Ext.P2 objection dated 06.01.2025, as evident from Ext.P3 postal acknowledgement card. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a copy of notice of lien dated 10.02.2025 issued by the 1st appellant Bank in respect of an account maintained by the 2nd respondent herein. On 18.03.2025 the respondents herein filed W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to clear the overdue in the loan account, by way of reasonable monthly installments; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to regularise the loan account and allow them to continue repayment as per the terms of the loan agreement; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to keep in abeyance all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount.

3. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025 with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment. In the judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

4. On 07.08.2025, the respondents herein filed W.P.(C) No.29526 of 2025 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to release vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091 seized by the Bank; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to repay the pending dues and consider their case in a sympathetic manner; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091; and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount.

5. In paragraph 4 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No. 29526 of 2025, the respondents herein have stated that even though they are regular in repaying the installment amount as per the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and taking earnest efforts to see that payments are made in time, there happened to be some shortfall in the regular EMIs.

6. By the judgment dated 08.08.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 by directing the respondents herein either to seek extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025 or to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

7. After the disposal of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025, the respondents herein filed I.A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top