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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
SHAMSUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43661 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Rajesh Vijayan, Smt. Jubairiya T.
For the Respondents: Sri. P. Paulochan Antony, SC

Judgments under the SARFAESI Act can enforce repayment obligations while allowing relief measures for petitioners under certain circumstances.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the dismissal of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the respondent bank for loan default. The court found no merit in the petition as per precedents set by the apex court, emphasizing obligations due on the loan. The court directed the petitioner to remit a specified amount within a given timeline and allowed further opportunities for settlement. The final decision stated: '...all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till then.'

Table of Content
1. loan obligations secured against property. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's financial hardship in context of loan repayment. (Para 2)
3. court's jurisdiction and refusal to intervene under sarfaesi act. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025)

The petitioner availed a term loan from the 1st respondent bank, by mortgaging the property in Re-Sy No.516/12/1 and a building situated therein in Block No.18 of Panmana Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam District. There was default in repaying the loan amount. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act , and issued notice under Section 13(2) demanding a sum of Rs.91,73,000/- (Ext.P1). Subsequently, the bank filed M.C. No.1570/2025 and an Advocate commissioner was appointed to take physical possession, who issued Ext.P3 notice dated 04.11.2025 informing that the physical possession will be taken on 21.11.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been ill for the last several months and so, the petitioner could not obtain a certified copy of the documents and that he is having serious objections regarding the claim of the 1st respondent. He submits that he is not able to remit the amount as demanded and seeks an order issuing direction to the 1st respondent Bank not to initiate SARFAESI proceedings against the secured assets.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank vehemently opposed the same and submits that the account turned NPA on 02.06.2025. The overdue as on today is Rs.13,82,983/-.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, relying on the judgment of the apex court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , this Court cannot entertain this writ petition against the challenge to Ext.P3 order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs) on or before 15.12.2025 and granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT till 20.12.2025. All coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till then. The petitioner is also free to approach the respondent bank with the proposal for one-time settlement.

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