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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
DR. ABRAHAM THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43741 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV SHRI.ANTONY THOMAS
For the Respondents: SMT.S.AMBILY, SMT.RUPA R. NAIR, SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)

A borrower facing financial distress must seek remedy from the Debts Recovery Tribunal if interim conditions are not met.

Headnote:The petitioner availed a financial assistance of Rs. 65,00,000 but defaulted due to financial distress, leading to a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court determined that the interim order was not complied with and advised the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, dismissing the writ petition.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Table of Content
1. borrower defaulting on loan due to financial distress. (Para 1 , 2)
2. failure to comply with interim order. (Para 3)
3. direction to approach debts recovery tribunal under sarfaesi act. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is a borrower of the 1st respondent Bank.

He had availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the loan was serviced till March, 2025. Due to financial distress, the repayment became irregular and the bank classified the account as a Non Performing Asset. A notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 20.05.2025 demanding payment of Rs.65,60,134/-. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(4) was also issued.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the bank to accept the outstanding amount in 24 monthly instalments. A statement has been filed by the respondent bank contending that the petitioner, a Doctor by profession and that, in his loan application, he had stated a monthly income of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is further contended that the petitioner has gone to the U.S.A. after resigning from the State Government Service. In the absence of repayment, the bank was constrained to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the secured assets.

3. In such circumstances, this Court passed an interim order on 19.12.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.8,05,690/- on or before 31.12.2025. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, time was extended till 16.01.2026. On 20.01.2026, the petitioner again sought further time, which was granted; but the interim order was not extended. Today, there is no representation for the petitioner and the interim order has not been complied with. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. In such circumstances, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act , in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] .

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

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