Kerala High Court
WP(C)/13224/2025 of MOHAMMED FAISAL Vs HDFC BANK LTD. on 28 March 2025
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13224 OF 2025 PETITIONER: MOHAMMED FAISAL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O P K KHALID, POOVATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBIAPURAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13224 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED FAISAL,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O P K KHALID, POOVATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBIAPURAM
ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682006.
BY ADV YOOSUF SAFWAN T. AJMAL
RESPONDENTS:
HDFC BANK LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, 3RD FLOOR,SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 682025.
BRANCH MANAGER,
HDFC BANK LTD, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, 3RD FLOOR, SL
PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682025.
SRI. M.PREMCHAND, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover amounts due under a loan availed by the petitioner along with his wife from the respondent Bank.
2. A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition will indicate that the petitioner has been conducting litigations before this Court from the year 2022. W.P(C)No.25124 of 2022 filed by the petitioner along with another was disposed of on 10.01.2024 permitting the petitioners to approach the Bank with a proposal for One Time Settlement. Thereafter the petitioner along with others (including his wife) filed W.P(C)No.5082 of 2024, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment again directing that if the petitioners make payment of Rs.10 lakhs and make a proposal for One Time Settlement, the same shall be considered by the respondent Bank. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that no amount was paid by the petitioner pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment.
3. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.15302 of 2024, which was disposed of on
12.04.2024 permitting the petitioner to clear off the liability in instalments. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that no amount was paid pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P(C)No.15302 of 2024. The petitioner thereafter sought a review of the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.15302 of 2024. The Review Petition, which was numbered as R.P.No.565 of 2024, was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. The wife of the petitioner approached this Court thereafter by filing W.P(C)No.4192 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.02.2025 in the following manner:- “2. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that no amount had been remitted by the petitioner and no proposal for One Time Settlement has been submitted and therefore, the bank is not willing to extend any further indulgence to the petitioner, especially considering the fact that none of the conditions imposed earlier by this Court in various litigations referred to above, have been complied with by the petitioner/her husband.
3. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be able to remit a substantial amount and file an application for One Time Settlement, if some further time is given, in the facts and circumstances noticed above and for reasons already indicated in the order dated 05.02.2025, I am of the view that no further relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.”
4. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to permit the petitioner to pay off the liabilities in 20 days. The history of the previous litigations conducted by the petitioner / his wife before this Court and the fact that no amounts were paid by the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in any of the judgments referred to above indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed in limine. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13224/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 27.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 25124 OF 2022 DATED 10.01.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENTPASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WPC. NO. 5082 OF 2024 DATED 06.03.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 15302/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 12.04.2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN R.P. NO. 565/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED13.09.2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4192 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 13.02.2025 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.03.2025 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2025