Allowed

Santha.M.M. v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC13 Dec 2010WP(C)/35070/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act for non-payment of a housing loan. It directed the bank to stay coercive measures upon the petitioner remitting arrears and monthly instalments by January 15, 2011, allowing account regularisation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents to keep coercive steps in abeyance if petitioner remits all arrears, interest, and January 2011 instalment on or before 15.1.2011.

Santha.M.M. Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 35070 of 2010(G)

PETITIONERS:

SANTHA.M.M., W/O. SREEDHARAN EZHUTHASSAN CHOREKKATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, AVANNUR.P.O., PIN-680547, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-680001.

¶14

M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SREE DHARMA SASTHA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PUZHAKKAL BRANCH, PUZHAKKAL-680553. THRISSUR DIST.

¶15

ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R1,2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 35070 of 2010

¶19

Dated the 13^th Day of December, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by coercive steps initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act'). Consequent to default committed in repayment of loan availed by the petitioner from respondent-bank, steps were initiated against the immovable property, which is the secured asset. Ext.P2 is the notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement )Rules, 2002, intimating steps as contemplated under section 13(4). According to the petitioner, the coercive steps were proceeded without acceding to request made by the petitioner for permitting payment of the defaulted amounts and for permitting regularisation of the account. Hence interference of this court is sought for.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

¶23

WPC 35070/10

¶24

-:2:-

¶25

bank, on the basis of the instructions, submitted that, the petitioner had availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs. 15.18 lakhs during the year 2008, which is re-payable within 15 years. But the petitioner had defaulted payment of the monthly instalments and the amounts in default was about Rs.86,000/-. Hence the loan account was classified as 'NPA ' and steps under the SARFAESI Act was pursued.

¶26

Considering the fact that the petitioner has not

¶27

resorted to the alternative remedy provided under the statute, interference of this Court to restrain the proceedings is not at all justified. However, as a gesture of indulgence, this court had intercepted the dispossession and sale of the property through an interim order issued subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the said amount has already been paid.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy and that she is relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceedings. Limited

¶29

WPC 35070/10

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

prayer made is only for a direction to permit for regularization of the account on the basis of an offer that the petitioner will make payment of defaulted amount within a short time.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to regularise the account, even though interference on merits is not at all desirable.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, provided the petitioner remits the entire arrears outstanding in the loan account, including interest and expenses if any due, on or before 15.1.2011. The petitioner shall also make payment of the monthly instalment due for the month of January, 2011, along with such payment.

¶34

If payment of the defaulted amount is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of re-payment.

¶35

WPC 35070/10

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

It is made clear that on the event of default in

¶38

payment of the amount as stipulated or any one of the monthly instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event, the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings .

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

kvm/-

WPC 35070/10

-:5:-

Santha.M.M. v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha.M.M. v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathy.L Vs Authorised Officer,S.B.I. and Another

T.Beena Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. N.v.Chettiar Vs the Asst. Commissioner & Another

Janaki Vs the District Collector

T.a.Mounaguruswamy Vs Deputy Tahsildar

H.V.D Prasad Vs Union Bank of India