Disposed

Joseph.J.Kuttikkattu v. the Housing Development Finance Corporai

Kerala HC10 Aug 2011RP/557/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition challenging a judgment granting a writ petition, the Court modified the original payment terms, allowing the petitioner to clear the loan dues in 24 equal monthly instalments instead of 10, while keeping recovery steps in abeyance pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to keep recovery steps in abeyance if the petitioner pays the entire balance due in 24 equal monthly instalments.

Joseph.J.Kuttikkattu Vs the Housing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 557 of 2011(D)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14032/2011 DATED 14/06/2011

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER / PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

JOSEPH J. KUTTIKKATTU, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI CORNER, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682017.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN

¶11

RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HDFC HOUSE, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682015.

¶14

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, HDFC HOUSE, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682015.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. SAJUSH PAUL, SC

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

RP.No. 557 of 2011(D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S

¶22

ANNEXURE AI : COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-8-2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

RP.557/2011 in WP(C).NO. 14032 of 2011

¶29

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all recovery steps, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in 10 equal monthly instalments, starting from 30.6.2011 onwards. The relief was granted on the basis of an appeal made on behalf of the petitioner to permit payment of the balance amount in a phased manner, based on an undertaking made relinquishing all challenges raised by the petitioner against the proceedings initiated.

¶32

In this review petition the petitioner submits that the

¶33

total arrears will come to more than Rs.7 lakhs and the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of the said amount in 10 monthly instalments. The petitioner points out that the original amount of monthly instalments fixed was Rs.10,379/- only, and the repayment period of 15 years will expire only in the year 2016. Hence the petitioner seeks a

¶34

RP.557/2011 in WP(C).14032/2011 2

¶35

review and modification of the judgment enabling him to make payment of the amount in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each.

¶36

The review petition is stiffly opposed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is contended that there is no ground existing for seeking review of the judgment. Contending that there exists no legal ingredients required for review of judgment, learned counsel for the respondents specifically points out that, the relief was granted on the basis of an undertaking made by the petitioner and the petitioner has not even complied with the condition stipulated, till date.

¶37

While considering the factual aspects, I take note of the fact that during pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.1.25 lakhs. It seems that while disposing the writ petition this court had omitted to notice that the repayment period fixed by virtue of the loan agreement is upto the year 2010. The loan in question was availed in the year 2001. Eventhough a review of the judgment in strict sense is not warranted, I am of the view that some relaxation with respect to

¶38

RP.557/2011 in WP(C).14032/2011 3

¶39

the burden of monthly instalments can be granted, with a view to ensure ends of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner also submits that the petitioner is intending to pay off the liability at the earliest and if some relaxation with respect to the amount payable on every month is granted, he will take all endevour to wipe of the liability at the earliest.

¶40

Considering all aspects as mentioned above the review petition is disposed of effecting modification in the terms of the payment insisted through the judgment, to the following extent:-

¶41

If the petitioner remits the entire balance due in the loan account along with interest and expenses if any accruing, in 24 (twenty four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.8.2011 and on or before the last day of the succeeding months, then the respondent shall keep in abeyance all further recovery steps.

¶42

It is made clear that the respondent will be at liberty to proceed with further steps in case of default in payment of any

¶43

one of the instalments. The respondent is directed to furnish a statement to the petitioner enumerating the amounts liable to be paid under the instalment scheme, within two weeks from today.

¶44

RP.557/2011 in WP(C).14032/2011 4

¶45

It is also made clear that no further extension will be granted

¶46

under any circumstances.

¶47

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶48

pmn/

Joseph.J.Kuttikkattu v. the Housing Development Finance Corporai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph.J.Kuttikkattu v. the Housing Development Finance Corporai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rotana Inn Private Limited Vs Surendran, Intelligence Officer

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs T.K.Viswan and Others

Rugmini C.P. Vs the Syndicate Bank & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs S.Rajan and Others

Dinsil Lonappan Vs Canara Bank and Another

Gineesh Vs State Bank of India and Another