Partly allowed

Shajahan v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC27 Sept 2012WP(C)/21623/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed that coercive action under the SARFAESI Act against a defaulting borrower be deferred if a partial payment and subsequent installment payments are made according to the schedule laid down, otherwise recovery proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action deferred subject to payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- within two weeks, followed by balance dues in eight monthly installments; resumed on breach.

Shajahan Vs the Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/5TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C). No. 21623 of 2012 (C) --------------------------IN CMP. 4980/2012 of C.J.M., KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJAHAN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AMEEN MANZIL, KARAMOODE KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI. SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT. BINDU GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶11

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.

¶12

HDFC HOUSE, VAZHUTHAKKADU

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶14

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

HDFC LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. A.S. SAJUSH PAUL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C). No. 21623 of 2012 ©

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

1. EXT. P1 - COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT DATED 28.05.2012.

¶23

2. EXT. P2 - COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 10.09.2012.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.21623 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

A housing loan of Rs.12,50,000/- was availed of by the petitioner on 31.03.2009. Payments were not made and bank submits that the defaulted instalments itself is of Rs.3,55,953/and the balance principal outstanding is more than Rs.7,70,000/-. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the bank and finally an order was also obtained from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court as provided under Section 14 of the Act. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court is scheduled to take over possession of the mortgaged property today. It is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to allow the petitioner to discharge the dues in instalments. Pointing out the facts as above, the bank opposes the prayer.

¶33

Evidently, from the above, it is clear that the petitioner is a defaulter. Therefore, the action of the bank in having taken coercive proceedings, cannot be faulted.

¶34

W.P.(C).No.21623/2012

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

Be that as it may, having regard to the request of the petitioner to allow him to pay the entire dues in instalments, I direct that subject to the petitioner paying Rs.2,00,000/- or or before 04.10.2012, coercive action now initiated will be deferred. If such payment is made, the balance liability towards the outstanding dues will also be paid within two weeks thereafter. If the two instalments are paid as above, possession of the property will not be taken over. Thereafter, the balance liability towards the loan in question will be allowed to be paid in eight equal monthly instalments. The first instalment will be paid on or before 30.11.2012 and the subsequent instalments will be paid on or before the 30^th of every succeeding month. It is made clear that in the event of default of any one of the conditions, the bank will be entitled to continue the recovery action already initiated.

¶37

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

Shajahan v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan v. the 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

N.Baluchamy Vs Intelligence Officer

The Piravom Grama Panchayath Vs P.M.Sahir

P.P. Moideenkutty Vs the State of Kerala

Nandakumar Vs Kozhikode Dist. Co-Op. Bank

Eranholikandiyil Siddique Vs the Tahsildar

Moidunni Vs Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad