Allowed

Ajeesh L. v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Apr 2013WP(C)/20715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of a defaulted housing loan. The court directed the petitioner to clear arrears in two equal installments with current EMI, upon which recovery proceedings would be stayed and the loan regularized.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to clear defaulted dues in two equal instalments by 30.04.2013 and 30.05.2013 with current EMI payment; recovery action stayed; loan to be regularized upon compliance.

Ajeesh L. Vs Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/21ST CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20715 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AJEESH. L.,

¶8

S/O LAKSHMANAN, K.P. XVII/70, VELLOOTTIL VEEDU, KALLAMBALAM, VELOOR JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM NOW RESIDING AT ADITHYA, ALANGODU P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, T.C.26/1655(6) REMA PLAZA, 1 FLOOR, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶12

2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD., T.C.26/1655(6), REMA PLAZA, 1 FLOOR, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶13

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 20715 of 2012 (L)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE BANK. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.5.2012. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF SEC. 13 (2) NOTICE DATED 10.8.2012. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.8.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2012

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Petitioner availed of a housing loan from the first respondent. According to the respondents, from 2011 onwards default was committed and as a result SARFAESI action was initiated. It is thereupon, this writ petition was filed and the request made by the counsel for the petitioner is for an opportunity to get the loan regularised.

¶25

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents states that it was on account of the default committed by the petitioner that the initial facts and that the petitioner being a defaulter, the respondents should be allowed to continue the proceedings.

¶26

As already stated, request of the petitioner is to regularise the loan and the petitioner is also willing to clear the entire defaulted dues. If that be so, I see no reason why the petitioner should be denied an opportunity

¶27

W.P.(c) No.6754 of 2012 : 2 :

¶28

to get the loan regularised. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner should clear the entire defaulted dues in two equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30.04.2013 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 30.05.2013. Along with the instalments, the current EMI shall also be paid. If payments are made as above and the entire arrears are cleared, the respondents will regularise the loan and allow the petitioner to pay the balance liability as per the agreement. Subject to payment as above, the recovery action initiated will stand stayed and in case of default, the respondents will be free to continue the recovery proceedings.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶31

Ajeesh L. v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeesh L. v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

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

Mathew George Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

M/S.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd Vs Asst.Commissioner (Assessment), Ernakulam

Fathima Public School Vs State of Kerala

Shoba.v Vs Joint R.T.O. Thalassery

P.M.Sunilkumar Vs the Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank

A.v.Sreejith Vs the District Magistrate and District Col